Identification of Constraints and Obstacles · LIFE+ Environment Policy and Governance ... 1 INTRODUCTION 10 2 SCOPE –METHODOLOGY 11 2.1 Geographical scope 12 2.2 Time 12 2.3 Functional

Identification of Constraints and Obstacles

Nicosia, 2010

LIFE+ Environment Policy and Governance

“Environmental Policy Support Tool for Recycling in Islands - REPT”

Action 5 Nicolaides & Associates 2

The information presented in this report has been compiled by the personnel of P. Nicolaides and Associates Ltd:

Panicos Nicolaides George Kirkos Rena Xanthou

Konstantinos Makris Andreas Souropetsis

Anna Karakosta

For the preparation of this report the following persons have contributed:

GAIA Laboratory of Environmental Engineering of the University of Cyprus:

Margarita Vatyliotou

Despo Fatta Kassinos

Green Dot (Cyprus) Public Co. Ltd: Kyriakos Parpounas, Constantinos Savva

Marios Vrahimis, Christiana Charalampous

Green Dot Malta Ltd: Edgar Chircop

Mario Schembri

HE.R.R.Co: Achilleas Gougos Vasilis Makridis

Eco-Emballages: Delphine Tascone

Pascal Gislais

Table of Contents


1 INTRODUCTION 10

2 SCOPE –METHODOLOGY 11 2.1 Geographical scope 12 2.2 Time 12 2.3 Functional unit 12 2.4 Waste Definitions 12 2.5 Data Collection 12 2.6 Assumptions 13 2.7 Constraints 14

3 GLASS 17 3.1 Best Available techniques for Recycling 18

3.1.1 Collection 18 3.1.2 Sorting 19 3.1.3 Treatment 21

3.2 Practices used in Participating Countries 22 3.2.1 Cyprus 22 3.2.2 Malta 22 3.2.3 Greece 23 3.2.4 France 23

3.3 Cost analysis 26 3.4 Cost/ revenue analysis 28 3.5 Identification of environmental impacts 29

3.5.1 Collection & Transport: 29 3.5.2 Sorting: 30 3.5.3 Treatment: 32

4 METAL 34 4.1 Best Available techniques for Recycling 35





5 PAPER 49 5.1 Best Available techniques for Recycling 50



5.3 Cost/ Revenue analysis 55


5.4 Cost/ revenue analysis 58 5.5 Identification of environmental impacts 59


6 PLASTIC 62 6.1 Best Available techniques for Recycling 63



6.3 Cost/Revenue analysis 71 6.4 Cost/ revenue analysis 73 6.5 Identification of environmental impacts 74


7 COOLING EQUIPMENT 77 7.1 Best Available techniques for Recycling 78

7.1.1 Collection 78 7.1.2 Pre-treatment 81 7.1.3 Treatment 81


7.3 Cost analysis 87 7.4 Identification of environmental impacts 89

7.4.1 Collection & Transport: 89

8 CRT SCREENS 92 8.1 Best Available techniques for Recycling 93

8.1.1 Collection 93 8.1.2 Treatment 93 8.1.3 CRT Recycling 96


8.3 Cost analysis 99 8.4 Identification of environmental impacts 101

8.4.1 Collection & Transport: 101 8.4.2 Recycling: 103

8.5 Identification of environmental impacts 104 8.5.1 Impact on human health 104 8.5.2 Toxic Chemicals Present in E-waste: Lead 104

9 FLUORESCENT LAMPS 106


9.1 Best Available techniques for Recycling 107 9.1.1 Collection 107 9.1.2 Treatment 107



9.5.1 Collection & Transport: 114 9.5.2 Treatment 116

10 CONSTRAINT ANALYSIS 117

11 CONCLUSIONS 119

12 REFERENCES 120


List of Acronyms

CAS: Civic Amenity Sites

CFCs: Chlorofluorocarbons

CRT: Cathode Ray Tube

EC: European Commission

EEE: Electrical and Electronic Equipment

EU: European Union

GDP: Gross Domestic Product

HE.R.R.Co: Hellenic Recovery Recycling Corporation

MRF: Material Recovery Facility

MSW: Municipal Solid Waste

PET: Polyethylene terephthalate

PMD: Plastic, Metals, Drink cartons

REPT: Recycling Environmental Policy Tool

RoHS: Directive 2002/95/EC on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment

WEEE: Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (Includes only CRT, cooling equipment and fluorescent lamps)

PPW: Packaging and Packaging Waste (Includes only metals (steel and Aluminium), paper and cardboard, Plastic and Glass)

PW: Packaging Waste

OECD: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

All references to ‘Cyprus’ refer to the areas were effective control of the Republic of Cyprus is in place, not including the Turkish Cypriot Community.


Figures Index Figure 3.1: Generic System process diagram for PW .................................................................................. 18 Figure 3.2: : Generic System process diagram for WEEE ........................................................................... 19 Figure 4.1: Automated-optical color sorting process (Mogensen GmbH & Co. KG, Germany, 2008)........... 24 Figure 4.2: System process diagram for recycling of Glass.......................................................................... 30 Figure 4.3: Glass waste management system boundary for environmental impact analysis ....................... 35 Figure 5.1: Closed-loop aluminium drink cans recycling (Alupro, 2009) ...................................................... 39 Figure 5.2: Recycling rate of main packaging materials in Europe in 2008 (APEAL, 2010) .......................... 40 Figure 5.3: Relevance of Steel Recycling and CO2 Production in Steel Production Industry (APEAL, 2010) ........................................................................................................................................................................ 41 Figure 5.4: System process diagram for recycling of Glass.......................................................................... 45 Figure 6.1: European Paper Recycling 1995-2007 (Paper Online, 2010)........................................................ 51 Figure 6.2: Fibre Recycling Process (SustainPack, 2009) ............................................................................. 52 Figure 6.3: System process diagram for recycling of Paper ........................................................................ 56 Figure 7.1: Growth change from EU15+2 to EU 25+2 in Plastic Recycling and Energy Recovery (Association of Plastic Manufacturers et al., 2008) ........................................................................................ 65 Figure 7.2: System process diagram for recycling of Plastics ..................................................................... 68 Figure 8.1: Basic model of the Maximum of Material recycling type (CFC Appliance) (source: Lanner and Rechberger, 2007)........................................................................................................................................... 76 Figure 8.2: WEEE management process in Greece (Appliances Recycling S.A., 2011) ................................ 80 Figure 8.3: System process diagram for recycling of cooling equipment.................................................... 82 Figure 9.1: Components of a computer monitor (Macauley et al., 2001) ....................................................... 88 Figure 9.2: Simplified schematic of the process steps at a materials recovery facility (MRF) (Kang and Schoenung, 2005) ........................................................................................................................................... 89 Figure 9.3: Schematic view of the CRT components, showing the non-glass and glass parts (Me΄ar, et al., 2006) ............................................................................................................................................................... 90 Figure 9.4: Process flow diagram for recycling of CRTs (Kang and Schoenung, 2005) ............................... 91 Figure 9.5: System process diagram for recycling of cooling equipment.................................................... 94 Figure 10.1: Components of a typical fluorescent lamp (Apisitpuvakul et al., 2008) .................................... 99 Figure 10.2: Recycling process by crushing fluorescent lamps (Ecolights, 2008) ..................................... 100 Figure 10.3: Existing Technology for Fluorescent Lamps recycling process (CoCusi Coque Co. Ltd, 2004 in Apisitpuvakul et al., 2008) ............................................................................................................................ 101


Tables Index Table 4.1: Production and recycling of Glass packaging waste in the participating countries for 2007 (Eurostat, 2011)............................................................................................................................................... 17 Table 4.2: Recycling plants in mainland France for the treatment of materials from Corsica (Ochier Vincent, personal communication, 2009 – Eco emballages) ......................................................................... 24 Table 4.3: Recycling Plants in Saint Barthelemy, Guadeloupe (Gislais Pascal, personal communication, 2009 – Eco emballages) .................................................................................................................................. 24 Table 4.4: Recycling Plants in Saint Martin, Guadeloupe (Gislais Pascal, personal communication, 2009 , Eco emballages) ............................................................................................................................................. 24 Table 4.5: Recycling plants for the treatment of Martinique’s Glass packaging waste (Gislais Pascal, personal communication, 2009, Inddigo Consulting, 2006 – – Eco emballages) .......................................... 25 Table 4.6: Recycling plants for the treatment of materials from Reunion (Gislais Pascal, personnal communication, 2009, PÖYRY Energy Consulting, 2006, PÖYRY Energy Consulting, 2007 – Eco Emballages) .................................................................................................................................................... 25 Table 4.7: Results of the data collection activity for Glass ........................................................................... 27 Table 4.8: Cost/ revenue Analysis for Glass recycling in €/ton (data provided by Green Dot organizations) ........................................................................................................................................................................ 28 Table 4.9: Percentages of costs per expense category (based on Table 4.8) ............................................... 28 Table 4.10: Atmospheric emissions from the collection and transport activities of Glass waste ................ 30 Table 5.1: Production and recycling of metal packaging waste in the participating countries for 2007 (Eurostat, 2011)............................................................................................................................................... 34 Table 5.2: Recycling plants in mainland France for the treatment of materials from Corsica (Ochier Vincent, personal communication, 2009 - Action 3) ...................................................................................... 41 Table 5.3: Recycling Plants in Saint Barthelemy, Guadeloupe (Gislais Pascal, personal communication, 2009) ............................................................................................................................................................... 41 Table 5.5 Recycling plants for the treatment of materials from Reunion (Gislais Pascal, personnal communication, 2009, PÖYRY Energy Consulting, 2006, PÖYRY Energy Consulting, 2007) ....................... 42 Table 5.6: Results of the data collection activity for Metal ............................................................................ 44 Table 5.7: Cost/ revenue Analysis for Metal recycling in €/ton (data provided by Green Dot organizations) ........................................................................................................................................................................ 45 Table 5.8: Percentages of costs per expense category (based on Table 5.7) ............................................... 45 Table 5.9: Atmospheric emissions from the collection and transport activities of metal waste .................. 46 Table 6.1: Production and recycling of paper packaging waste in the participating countries for 2007 (Eurostat, 2011)............................................................................................................................................... 49 Table 6.2: Recycling plants in mainland France for the treatment of materials from Corsica (Ochier Vincent, personal communication, 2009) ....................................................................................................... 54 Table 6.3: Recycling Plants in Saint Martin, Guadeloupe (Gislais Pascal, personal communication, 2009) 54 Table 6.4: Recycling plants for the treatment of Martinique’s packaging waste (Gislais Pascal, personal communication, 2009, Inddigo Consulting, 2006) .......................................................................................... 55 Table 6.5: Recycling plants for the treatment of materials from Reunion (Gislais Pascal, personal communication, 2009, PÖYRY Energy Consulting, 2006, PÖYRY Energy Consulting, 2007) ....................... 55 Table 6.6: Results of the data collection activity for Paper ........................................................................... 57 Table 6.7: Cost/ revenue Analysis for Paper recycling in €/ton (data provided by Green Dot organizations) ........................................................................................................................................................................ 58 Table 6.8: Percentages of costs per expense category (based on Table 6.7) ............................................... 58 Table 6.9: Atmospheric emissions from the collection and transport activities of paper and cardboard waste ............................................................................................................................................................... 59 Table 7.1: Production and recycling of plastic packaging waste in the participating countries for 2007 (Eurostat, 2011)............................................................................................................................................... 62 Table 7.2: Standard Marking Code of the Main Types of Plastic and Usage Examples (WasteOnline, 2006) ........................................................................................................................................................................ 63 Table 7.3: Recycling plants in mainland France for the treatment of materials from Corsica (Ochier Vincent, personal communication, 2009) ....................................................................................................... 69


Table 7.4: Recycling Plants in Saint Martin, Guadeloupe (Gislais Pascal, personal communication, 2009) 69 Table 7.5: Recycling plants for the treatment of Martinique’s packaging waste (Gislais Pascal, personal communication, 2009, Inddigo Consulting, 2006) .......................................................................................... 70 Table 7.6: Recycling plants for the treatment of materials from Reunion (Gislais Pascal, personnal communication, 2009, PÖYRY Energy Consulting, 2006, PÖYRY Energy Consulting, 2007) ....................... 70 Table 7.7: Results of the data collection activity for Plastics ........................................................................ 72 Table 7.8: Cost/ revenue Analysis for Plastic recycling in €/ton (based on Green Dot activity) ................. 73 Table 7.9: Percentages of costs per expense category (based on Table 7.8) ............................................... 73 Table 7.10: Atmospheric emissions from the collection and transport activities of plastics waste ............. 74 Table 8.1: Participation Rate in WEEE of Large Household Appliances for REPT Participating Countries in 2008 (Eurostat, 2011) ...................................................................................................................................... 77 Table 8.2: Collection and recycling of large household appliances WEEE in the participating countries in 2008 (Eurostat, 2011) ...................................................................................................................................... 78 Table 8.3: Summary of collection options and transportation responsibilities (H-Y. Kang and J. M. Schoenung, 2005) ........................................................................................................................................... 80 Table 8.4: Information about cooling appliances in Guadeloupe (Perrier R.L., personal communication 9/6/09).............................................................................................................................................................. 86 Table 8.6: Information about cooling appliances produced in Reunion (Eco-systemes, 2009a) .................. 87 Table 8.7: Results of the data collection activity for cooling equipment ...................................................... 88 Table 8.8: Cost Analysis for Cooling Equipment recycling .......................................................................... 89 Table 8.9: Atmospheric emissions from the collection and transport activities of cooling equipment ....... 90 Table 9.1: Participation Rate in WEEE of Consumer Equipment for REPT Participating Countries in 2008 (Eurostat, 2011)............................................................................................................................................... 92 Table 9.2: Collection and recycling of consumer equipment WEEE in the participating countries in 2008 (Eurostat, 2011)............................................................................................................................................... 93 Table 9.3: Information about cooling appliances in Guadeloupe (Perrier R.L., personal communication 9/6/09).............................................................................................................................................................. 98 Table 9.4: Information about cooling appliances produced in Martinique (Eco-systemes, 2009a) .............. 99 Table 9.5: Information about cooling appliances produced in Reunion (Eco-systemes, 2009a) .................. 99 Figure 9.5: System process diagram for recycling of cooling equipment.................................................... 99 Table 9.6: Results of the data collection activity for CRT Screen ............................................................... 100 Table 9.7: Cost Analysis for CRT Screens recycling ................................................................................... 101 Table 9.8: Atmospheric emissions from the collection and transport activities of CRT screens ............... 102 Table 10.1: Participation Rate in WEEE of Lighting Equipment for REPT Participating Countries in 2008 (Eurostat, 2011)............................................................................................................................................. 106 Table 10.2: Collection and recycling of lighting equipment WEEE in the participating countries in 2008 (Eurostat, 2011)............................................................................................................................................. 107 Table 10.3: Collected used lamps quantities (kg) for each island under study in 2007 and 2008 (Lantoinette Xavier, personal communication, 4/9/09 – Action 3) .................................................................................... 112 Figure 10.4: System process diagram for recycling of Fluorescent lamps ................................................ 112 Table 10.5: Results of the data collection activity for Fluorescent Lamps.................................................. 113 Table 10.6: Cost Analysis for Fluorescent Lamps ....................................................................................... 114 Table 10.7: Atmospheric emissions from the collection and transport activities of Fluorescent lamps screens ......................................................................................................................................................... 115


1 Introduction Certain solid waste management activities in islands often could be considered as unsustainable due to factors like insularity, small size of population and land area and limited volumes of produced waste. Commonly, exporting for the treatment of the collected waste streams is the only solution. Export activities are considered expensive (depends on the distance from the waste treatment facilities) and are associated with additional environmental impacts i.e. CO2 emissions from transport.

Action 5 of the REPT project carries out a technical and financial analysis of the current practises and technologies used in each of the participant member states for each of the selected waste streams (glass, metal, plastic, paper, cooling equipment, CRT screens and fluorescent lamps) based on the data collected in the previous actions. Furthermore, an environmental impact analysis has been carried out to identify the environmental externalities of the treatment methods used in each country. Moreover, major constraints and obstacles have been identified for small island member states and member states which include islands in the implementation of cost effective and sustainable collection and treatment practises.

For the purposes of this Action an analytical technical description of the collection and treatment measures of each selected waste stream for each participating member state has been applied. Emphasis has been given to island member states (Malta and Cyprus) and selected islands from Greece and France.


2 Scope –Methodology

This report focuses its discussion on the following waste streams:

o Packaging waste (PW) and especially glass, metals, plastics and paper

o Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) and specifically cooling equipment, CRT screens and fluorescent lamps

For each waste stream the following analysis is carried out:

• Description of Best Available Techniques for waste management

• Technical description of collection and treatment measures currently used in participating countries

• Cost analysis for the current waste collection and treatment activities of the participating member states

• Identification of environmental impact analysis for the current waste collection and treatment activities of the participating member states

• Identification of constraints and obstacles for the implementation of cost effective and sustainable waste management practices.

One can argue that the choice of structuring the report in a way that focuses on specific waste streams is not optimal when trying to understand waste management costs. Instead, reference to specific waste management systems could be more sensible. Although this is not a false argument, the choice to concentrate on a system component (waste stream) is based on the following rational:

• It allows for data to be more compatible with Action 6: Development of Decision Support Tool (DST) for recycling that follows this report. The grouping of costs per waste stream and then in recycling components i.e. collection, transport, sorting etc. makes the integration of this data into the DST more straight forward.

• It allows for a more straightforward comparison between member states and different practices

The fragmentation of cost data by waste stream indeed presented some challenges for the project team. Waste management operations are, in most cases, integrated systems with a high degree of interdependency. For example, the choice of waste collection activities will determine in a great extend the sorting or treatment options available. Furthermore, the cost data reported by the participating Green Dot organizations refer to a single cost value for the whole of the collection activity, including the collection of all packaging waste streams. The use of estimations and assumptions to isolate costs for each waste stream may have resulted in lower accuracy of the projected figures.


2.1 Geographical scope

This study refers to the four countries participating in the REPT project: Cyprus, Greece, Malta and France. However, since the specific data available for the four countries were limited, the study also utilizes mostly generic data obtained through literature. As a result, the data and results may be equally applicable to other countries and regions with similar characteristics (i.e. population size, population densities, country area etc.).

2.2 Time Data for PPW i.e. waste quantities, population size etc. refer to the year 2007. This is the latest year for which data for all participating countries were available in order to be comparable and easy to process. The base year for WEEE for the same reason is 2006.

2.3 Functional unit The main functional unit used for the presentation of the results of this study is the metric tonne. All cost references are made as €/tonne of the selected waste streams and environmental impacts are also expressed per tonne i.e. CO2 emissions per recovered tonne of waste

2.4 Waste Definitions This study deals with seven different waste streams both from PPW and WEEE categories.

The PPW waste include:

• Packaging paper and carton from the municipal waste stream

• Packaging plastic from the municipal waste stream

• Packaging glass waste

• Metals from packaging

The WEEE waste include:

• cooling equipment (fridges and air conditioners)

• Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) screens

• Fluorescent lamps

2.5 Data Collection Data were collected regarding the selected waste (glass, metal plastic, paper, cooling equipment, CRT screens and fluorescent lamps) for each participating member state.


For the completion of the cost analysis, environmental impact and the constraint analysis the following data were collected:

• Current practices used for collection, sorting and treatment for each selected waste stream in each participating member state

• Data regarding economic values (costs) for each stage of the collection and treatment procedure for each selected waste stream and participating member state were collected. More specifically these data concern costs for collection, sorting, treatment, transport and export of waste. Finally, data regarding earnings from the collection and treatment of each waste stream per participating country have been collected

• Qualitative and quantitative data regarding environmental externalities and impacts from the recycling practices.

Sources used for the collection of data included: - The compliance schemes participating in the REPT program. More precisely data collected from,

Green Dot (Cyprus) Public Co. Ltd, Green Dot Malta Ltd, HE.R.R.Co from Greece and Eco-Emballages from France. Compliance schemes in each country were responsible for collecting data from governmental and private sources for each selected waste stream.

- Government authorities involved with waste management

- EU and national reports regarding waste management in the participating member states

- International literature on waste management

2.6 Assumptions • In the scenarios made for the purposes of cost analysis and environmental impact

analysis, Directive compliant technology is assumed i.e. Directive 1999/31/EC on landfills, Directive 2000/76/EC on waste incineration, and Directive 2001/80/EC on the limitations of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants.

• It is assumed that any energy recovered by waste recovery systems is converted into electrical power. This recovery therefore results in the avoidance of emissions and resources consumed that would be otherwise associated with the provision of such electricity. Subtracting the amount of electrical energy produced from that consumed gives the net amount of electrical energy consumed, or avoided that is attributable to the waste management system. This includes energy used, or generated, from incineration, biocomposting with energy production, as well as that in the full life cycle of recycled versus virgin materials.

• In this study only the packaging waste fraction of materials i.e. glass, paper, plastic and metal is concerned. Thus economic and environmental data presented only refer to packaging waste i.e. glass waste only refer to glass containers.


2.7 Constraints Cost Data The acquisition of detailed cost data proved to be a task more difficult than that of the presentation of BATs and current practices. At the beginning of the cost data collection activity, a form detailing the necessary financial data was developed and distributed amongst partners to carry out the collection of data. As it will become clear, the detail in which cost breakdowns are presented varies widely across countries. Due to the fact that in some countries there are more than one systems involved in recycling or even that private contractors carried out some of the recycling processes, actual cost data were very limited (due to confidentiality, lack of data or data access constraints). To overcome this issue the project team resulted in acquiring data (where necessary) from the national and international literature. Furthermore estimations and assumptions based on the existing and collected data were carried out in order to complete the task. The analysis and processing of data in order to produce comparable data in each participating country also proved to be a slow process due to the many different methods used by the four coun-tries for acquiring and presenting the data. Conversions between parameters such as distance, weight, cost etc. had to be carried out in order to produce data and parameters comparable among countries. It has to be considered that within a given country facilities of similar type vary in scale and in detailed design. As such, it is not possible to give unique values for the unit costs of specific facilities. All of these factors imply that care must be taken when using the information contained in this report

The assessment of the environmental impacts of recycling was also a challenging task. The project team aimed at carrying out a detailed environmental impact by assessing the greater number of parameters possible from each process and waste stream. During this process it was soon realized that quality data on the micro-scale that was needed were not readily available. For example, data on the emissions to water resources during the recycling of cooling equipment were not available in literature for all processes (collection, pre-treatment and treatment). This also made the comparison among the environmental impacts of the relevant waste streams impossible to carry out for al pa-rameters.

2.8 Detailed Methodology Cost analysis for the current waste collection and treatment activities of the participating member states.

This section of the report comprises of a cost analysis of present waste management conditions of the selected waste streams from participating member states. The analysis of costs related to the recycling practices of the participating member states will allow the extraction of conclusions re-garding the financial comparability of recycling in island and mainland member states.

For each waste stream, a system process tree was prepared that sets the individual unit processes associated with the recycling of the specific waste stream. The cost analysis was then carried out


based on each system process tree and the processes that applied on each participating member state.

The process trees for the waste management of the various waste consists of four main process types: collection, transport, sorting, and treatment.

Collection: refers to the use of vehicles and personnel to collect the waste from its source. Two main collection types are considered: curbside collection and bring-in schemes

Transport: involves the use of vehicles transport waste from one process to another i.e. from sort-ing facility to export centre

Sorting: involves the sorting of waste in a sorting facility or a Material Recovery facility (MRF). Sorting may involve separation of specific waste streams i.e. glass, paper, metal from a mixed stream of waste or the separation of a single waste stream into different grates and the removal of contaminants. One example would be the mechanical colour sorting of waste glass and the remov-al of ceramic or metallic contaminants.

Treatment: is any process that changes the characteristics of a waste to make it less of an envi-ronmental threat.

Figure 2.1: Generic System process diagram for PW

Figure 2.2: Generic System process diagram for WEEE

The cost data were obtained through the activities of previous project actions and through additional data collection carried out for Action 5. Wherever possible, actual country data were used. These data mainly came from the participant Green Dot organizations in each country and may not represent costs that apply for all recycling systems in that country. However, considering the fact that in all participating member states the Green Dot organizations hold the greatest (or the whole) portion of the recycling market, these costs can be considered acceptable. Cost data that could not be collected from the local partners were identified through the national and international literature.

Waste Collection Sorting Transport 1 Recycling

Transport 2 Aggregate Use/

Energy recovery/Export

Waste Collection Pre-Treatment

Transport

Recycling

Export

Sorting


Environmental Assessment

As part of the evaluation of waste management practices in relation to WEEE and PWW, an environmental impacts assessment of waste management activities in each participating country is carried out. The waste management activities examined in the environmental assessment include the waste collection and transport, sorting and recycling. For each of the before mentioned activities the following environmental parameters are examined:

- Waste collection and transport: carbon dioxide (CO2), Nitrous oxides (N2O), Sulphur dioxide (SO2) and ammonia atmospheric emissions. The collection and transport of waste includes mainly the burning of fuels for the movement of collection vehicles, hence the associated atmospheric emissions are examined.

- Sorting: Sorting activities mainly include the consumption of electricity for the operation of the sorting facility equipment. As a result, the environmental parameters examined are the atmospheric emissions associated with electricity production in each country: CO2, N2O, SO2, ammonia

- Recycling: Recycling activities include the production of recycled products from raw material produced by the recycling of the collected waste. This process includes the utilization of energy, virgin raw material and also has waste produced in the form of solid and liquid waste.


3 Glass Glass is a significant part of the municipal waste stream. According to European Environmental Agency (2010)① 6% of the municipal waste in the EU is glass. This translates to 31 kg/person in EU of glass waste every year. The glass component in municipal waste is usually made up of bottles, broken glassware, light bulbs and other items. The management of glass waste in the EU is based on the EU waste strategy②, which may be summarised as:

• Prevention or reduction of waste production and its harmfulness • Recovery of waste by means of recycling, re-use or reclamation or any other process with

a view to extracting secondary raw materials • Use of waste as a source of energy

As a result, recycling rates for post-consumer scrap glass have increased steadily during the past decade in the EU (63% recycling) according to Eurostat (2011). The quantities of the glass that is produced as packaging waste and the quantities of it been recycled are demonstrated in the following Table 3.1: Production and recycling of Glass packaging waste in the participating countries for 2007 (Eurostat, 2011) Glass Produced as Packaging Waste

(tones / % of produced PPW) Glass recycled (tones / % Glass produced)

Cyprus 18 684 / 29

1943 / 10.4

Malta 12 312 / 28 2 044 / 16,6

Greece 150 000 / 15

27 000 / 18

France 3 145 141 / 30

1 937 407 / 61.6

EU 16 540 927 / 24 10 494 294 / 63,4

① EIONET: http://scp.eionet.europa.eu/themes/waste

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_waste

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bottle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glassware

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_bulb

http://scp.eionet.europa.eu/themes/waste


3.1 Best Available techniques for Recycling

3.1.1 Collection The value and uses of glass for recycling depend strongly on the purity and condition of the glass collected, and this in turn depends strongly on the manner in which the glass is collected. The most widely used techniques for glass collection (can be considered to be BATs) are those that achieve the collection of good quality glass, and these are mainly those that implement separate collection of glass i.e. Kerbside collection, Drop-off recycling and Buy-back centres.

Buy-Back centres: Glass Buy-Back schemes are adopted by local or national authorities and involve the take back of selected glass items in exchange of money (in most cases). People returning containers for deposit usually only bring in beverage containers. Other glassware such as ceramics Pyrex or Visionware glass, light bulbs, window glass, or other types of materials are usually not collected, thus limiting the contamination of the glass to be recycled. The main contaminants found in this collection scheme are bottle caps and metallics on labels.

Another benefit of this system is that most bottles are collected whole and can be easily sorted by color, reducing the need for mechanical sorting which increases the cost of processing. Kerbside Collection Glass: Glass collected through Kerbside programs varies widely (in quality) based on how it is collected and how it is processed. Kerbside glass collection can be divided into the following collection systems:

1. Color-sorted collection: The glass items are placed in separated containers according to color prior their collection and are collected separately. Color-separated glass has the highest value of all the kerbside collected glass, and can be sold directly to glass container manufacturers. It is also associated with reduced costs of sorting or even no sorting at all. Common contaminants include ceramics, Pyrex, and glass of other color. Since color sorted loads are usually delivered directly to the glass processing factories, it is essential to have the least possible contamination.

2. Color-mixed collection:

In most Kerbside glass collection systems, glass is collected color-mixed but separate from other recyclables. Glass collected in this manner is relatively clean but again has more contaminants than take-back or color sorted glass. Color mixed glass from Kerbside collection usually undergoes some kind of color sorting in sorting facilities before sold to glass manufacturers in order to achieve higher quality and higher price.

The best available sorting technique to present is optical sorting (see Chapter 4.1.2). However, the use of this technology is currently limited by its high cost and the comparatively low rate of sorting. Optically sorted glass is considered high quality product and can get high prices on the market. Unsorted color mixed glass and other contaminated glass streams are usually used only as aggregates or are disposed in landfill.


3. Single Stream Commingled Collection Including Glass

This collection method involves collection of glass within a single stream including paper, plastic and metals. In the majority of cases, glass collected in this manner is highly contaminated and can only be used as aggregate material or even for daily landfill cover. Higher quality glass can be recovered if the waste stream passes through optical sorting, however much of the glass collected this way becomes broken before it even gets to the sorting belt at processing facilities, and this broken glass is difficult to recover. The broken glass again can cause significant equipment damage both at the processor and at the paper mills unless the glass is removed early in the sorting process. To an increasing extent, processing facilities are dealing with this by purposefully breaking all of the glass at the beginning of the sort line so that the broken pieces will fall through the sorting screens and become separated from the paper. This broken glass ends up mixed with paper shreds, bottle caps, dirt, and all other small pieces of recycling and garbage that people put in their recycling bins. In most states, the glass is too contaminated to use for anything other than landfill cover, or if cleaned up to a degree, for aggregate uses such as the construction of road beds.

Drop-off recycling

This collection method involves the installation of special bins (bottle banks) in locations within a city so that people can transfer and dispose their glass waste. The collection of the material is done with the use of an open truck equipped to empty the bins. Glass collection points are very common near shopping centres, at civic amenity sites and in local neighbourhoods and are usually located next to collection points for other recyclable waste like paper, metals and plastics.

Drop-off collection points may have separate bins for clear, green and amber/brown glass or they can be mixed-color. In normal conditions the quality of the collected glass is high (little contamination).

3.1.2 Sorting Color sorting

This kind of sorting is held mainly for mixed or single stream glass collection and involves separation of the collected glasses by color in order to produce glass artefacts (for example bottles). For this purpose automated-optical sorting (Figure 3.1), which uses air classifiers and jet streams tied to ultraviolet beams to sort crushed glass by color can be used to reduce overall cost and increase quality (Glass packaging institute, 2010). There are three main types of color being sorted from the automated optical sorting including: clear (or flint), amber (or brown) and green glass.

To be more precise, prior to the start of the automated color-sorting process, the equipment should be programmed for the removal of the chosen glass color. Though, automated sorting systems have the ability to be adjusted to remove any one or a combination of the three glass colors mentioned above. In a second phase, the resulting cullet should be vacuumed to remove all

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shopping_centre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civic_amenity_site

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic


contaminants (labels, dirt, and plastic). However, before the automatic color-sorting equipment procedure, ceramic removal should be implemented manually or automatically, as this material can produce troublesome background noise. Afterwards, the mixed cullet is sent into the color-sorting devise through a vibrating conveyer belt that keeps the glass cullet in a thin layer. The cullet passes over a plate embedded with fibber optic cables, in its entrance to the unit. The determination of the glass color is achieved by the use of a high-speed pulsing light source which is projected through the glass particles to the fibber optics cables and senses the amount of light transmitted through each piece. At the end, the system detects any contaminant and directs one of a series of “air knives” to take out this material with a flaw of air. This type of equipment is able to process approximately 5 metric tons of cullet per hour③.

It should be noted that when glass is processed in this manner, the glass fines (small pieces of glass smaller than 3/8 inch) are screened out, because the optical sorters do not identify and reject smaller pieces of contaminating material. Otherwise, manual sorting can be held only for big cullet combined with slower sorting speed (LBA Associates and SERA, 2008).

Figure 3.1: Automated-optical color sorting process (Mogensen GmbH & Co. KG, Germany, 2008) ③ Cleaning Washington Center, 2000: http://www.cwc.org/gl_bp/2-04-03.pdf

http://www.cwc.org/gl_bp/2-04-03.pdf


Contaminant Separation

As mentioned above, for the separation of contaminants automated methods can be used as well. Ceramic detection technologies and automated equipment separating nonferrous metals such as bottleneck rings from cullet are available. Moreover, multiple screening systems and other automated technologies can be used for the separation of the glass packaging from contaminants (Life+: Recycling Sympraxis, 2009).

3.1.3 Treatment Treatment procedures depend on the quality of the sorted glass (for example level of breakage, contamination degree). The treatment options are the same as for all packaging waste: landfilling, reuse, recycling and recovery.

Landfilling

Glass in very small pieces, mixed or contaminated (which cannot be recycled) is sent to landfills to be used as an aggregate in landfill cover.

Aggregate Use

Uncontaminated crushed glass can be used in several kinds of applications, for example (Enviros Consulting Ltd, 2003):

• Construction works (in roads and parking lots as an aggregate substitute). In this case the use of glass may result in more emissions than using virgin material, due to processing and transport procedures involved.

• In filtration procedures as a filtration media (e.g. swimming pools, water treatment). Again, the use of glass may result in more emissions than using virgin material, due to processing and transport procedures.

• In brick construction industries as an additive to the construction elements. Approximate addition of 5% of recycled glass with size range around 20-40μm reduces firing energy requirement around 5% reducing as well the emissions from brick industry

• In shot blast abrasives (e.g. graffiti removal from walls)

Recycling Uncontaminated glass sorted by color can be melted and reformed in new glass artefact, vessel and container. By the use of recycled glass to manufacture new glass vessels environmental benefits occur including:

o Lower energy requirement for melting the glass. o Use of carbonate raw materials which release ‘chemical’ CO2 during the glass melting

process is avoided. o Avoided use of soda ash, which is one of the main glass raw materials and is very

energy consuming to manufacture.

In contrast to these benefits is the transport energy involved in the collection along with transport and reprocessing of recycled glass. In UK, glass manufacturers use the assumption that for every


10% of cullet added to the furnace raw material charge, energy use will fall by 2.5% (Enviros Consulting Ltd, 2003). Suggestively, 1,000 kg of recycled glass could also save about 12 kg of oil (Ministry of Environment of Greece, 2010) In addition, sorted and uncontaminated glass can be used in the production of insulation glass fibre. Insulation fibre glass has a very similar composition to container glass thus approximately 50% of the feedstock can be recycled glass. Moreover, savings in energy consumption and reduction of CO2 emissions with the use of recycled glass are almost the same as in the glass manufacture industry (Enviros Consulting Ltd, 2003). Reuse By use of the buy-back centre collection method, the majority of the glass containers collected could be unbroken. Filling companies can use these bottles again and again after removing any contaminants (caps and labels). This kind of treatment has the lowest CO2 emissions to the environment than any other treatment procedure as the major emissions are produced by transporting of the empty glass containers to the refilling facilities.

3.2 Practices used in Participating Countries

3.2.1 Cyprus The glass waste stream comprise of glass bottles and jars and other glass packaging of all colors and shapes. The glass stream in Cyprus is collected through bring in site collection system. Glass stream is collected alone and separately from other materials. Special bell shaped bins which are placed at points that are chosen together with the local authorities are used for its collection. One glass litter bin is placed for approximately every 600 residents. The collection of the material is done with the use of an open truck equipped to empty bell shaped bins and performed by subcontractors that are selected through invitation to tenders. Practical experience concerning the concentration of the material determines the frequency of collection. In a next stage the glass is transported to a sorting unit where it is cleaned and grinded. Finally glass is promoted for recycling locally or abroad. Quantities of glass collected by Green dot Cyprus are send to local cement factories to participate in the cement production process as aggregate.

3.2.2 Malta In Malta glass waste stream can be collected either through bring in site program established from WasteServ Malta Ltd (which is actually a cooperation of WasteServe, with local authorities which have indicated some sites available to set bins appropriate for collecting recyclable waste including glass) or through GreenPack’s waste collection systems. The glass stream is collected separately from other materials but it is colormixed.


3.2.3 Greece Drop-off Schemes

Household packaging waste including glass is collected through the appropriately labelled blue bins owned by HE.R.R.Co to which citizens can dispose their packaging waste squeezed and clean. Those bins can be found in defined, by the local authorities, locations in neighbourhoods. Dissemination material including a 35 litres reusable bag has been distributed to all citizens in the cities participating in the system. When the reusable bag is full citizens empty them in the blue bins with the appropriate signs. The collected packaging is transferred by the Municipalities to a number of Centers for the Sorting and Recovery of Materials which operate under the responsibility or funding of HE.R.R.Co, where recyclable materials are sorted before they are sent for further treatment to the correspondent industry sectors. Currently, there are 19 such centres which cover the following areas: Attiki, Thessalloniki, Irakleio, Chania, Kalamata, Patra, Zakinthos, Shimatari, Lamia, Karditsa, Corfu, Katerini, Magnisia, Ioannina. In addition two more such centres are under construction in Alexandroupolis and Rhodes. Regarding islands HE.R.R.Co is applying separate collection streams especially focusing on the collection of glass and paper (source: Action 3).

Moreover, there is a supplementary collective system operating in the municipalities of Athens, Thessaloniki, Piraeus, Patra and Irakleio. It is financed from the participating municipalities together with Carrefour Marinopoulos, INFOQUEST, Sourotis, Atlantik, and Alfa Alfa Energy. Through this system citizens can bring and dispose all kind of packaging waste including glass in selected points in the cities like squares, parks, supermarkets, schools etc. This system aims to develop an integrated system with the use of high technology equipment for the recycling of packaging waste including glass by offering a mutual incentive to consumers. This system is planned to expand to the whole country with the placement of 900 collection centers.

Take Back Scheme

Finally, there is a private system which has in place 45 collection centers of high technology outside of A.B Marinopoulos S.A supermarkets which own the system. In these centers the consumer returns the reusable glass packaging among others and can either receive a small amount or offer this amount to a voluntary scheme. Moreover, A.B. Marinopoulos operates a removable recycling center which travels around the country to promote packaging recycling and collect packaging waste quantities.

3.2.4 France In France the collection system of packaging waste rests on the choices of each local authority. Though, sorting must be conducted according to Eco-Emballages’ requirements and the selected material streams have to fulfil the technical prescriptions set up by Eco-Emballages. Trading of sorted materials is been run either from each local authorities or Eco-Emballages’ material organisation that will trade it on its behalf. In any case, the gains made from the trade of sorted materials go to local authorities.

Separate collection of the selected waste streams (glass, metal, plastic, paper) is very common in France. However, with about 1,300 local authorities, there is a wide variability of collection features throughout the country. Though, glass is always collected separately, and most of the time through a bring site network (collective containers).

In the French islands, responsibility for the collection and treatment of municipal waste which includes household packaging waste (including glass) falls on the local authorities, thus most of


them have gathered into a group of municipalities so as to benefit from the economy of scale. In precision, not all municipalities have contract with Eco-Emballages and those that have are responsible of collecting and sorting household packaging waste while Eco-Emballages takes care of the treatment.

In Corsica all groups of municipalities have a bring-site system which includes separate bins for glass. There is no sorting centre in Corsica for packaging household. Glass packaging, is gathered in three platforms in the ports before being shipped to a sorting line on the mainland. Treatment of glass packaging waste of Corsica is taking place in Beziers. Information is demonstrated in the following Table.

Table 3.2: Recycling plants in mainland France for the treatment of materials from Corsica (Ochier Vincent, personal communication, 2009 – Eco Emballages)

Glass

Location of recycling plant Béziers

Type of recycling Glass factory

Distance travelled from sorting centre 200km

Type of transport ground

Type of packing bulk

Guadeloupe and more precisely Saint Martin’s collection of packaging is made through a bring site network like in Corsica. On the other hand, in the municipality of Saint Bartelemy (Guadeloupe) there is no separate collection of packaging waste as metals and glass are collected in the same container. Treatment procedures for glass in the municipalities of Guadeloupe examined are demonstrated in the Tables below. Table 3.3: Recycling Plants in Saint Barthelemy, Guadeloupe (Gislais Pascal, personal communication, 2009 – Eco emballages)

Saint Barthelemy glass

Location of recycling plant locally

Type of recycling Crushed and used in road building



Type of packing bulk Table 3.4: Recycling Plants in Saint Martin, Guadeloupe (Gislais Pascal, personal communication, 2009, Eco Emballages)

Saint Martin glass

Location of recycling plant locally

Type of recycling Crushed and used in road building




Type of packing bulk

Regarding Martinique three groups of municipalities have chosen bring in site collection system which comprise of a network of big containers, rather than individual bins. Conversely, a door-to-door collection system is tested in CACEM group of municipalities (with individual bins) on pilot sites, covering a population of about 15,000 people. This system is planned to be extended to the whole territory of CACEM (population of 170,000) in the coming years. Sorting of collected materials is held in the sorting centre opened in 2000 and modernized in 2008 in Ducos, where materials are sorted. Glass is send to the mainland for further treatment. In the following Table information about treatment plant that serve glass packaging waste of Martinique is demonstrated.

Table 3.5: Recycling plants for the treatment of Martinique’s Glass packaging waste (Gislais Pascal, personal communication, 2009, Inddigo Consulting, 2006 – – Eco emballages)

glass

Location of recycling plant Bordeaux

Type of recycling Glass-factory


Type of transport ship

Type of packing Bulk in 20’OT

As well as in the rest of the islands examined, Reunion uses a bring-site system for glass packaging. In Reunion there are three sorting centres placed in Sainte Marie, Pierrefonds and Le Port that perform manual sorting. No local treatment for packaging waste exists in Reunion. Consequently, after collection and sorting, glass packaging waste is shipped and recycled abroad as shown in Table 3.6 Table 3.6: Recycling plants for the treatment of materials from Reunion (Gislais Pascal, personal communication, 2009, PÖYRY Energy Consulting, 2006, PÖYRY Energy Consulting, 2007 – Eco Emballages)

glass

Location of recycling plant South Africa

Type of recycling Glass factory


Type of transport ship Type of packing Bulk in 20’OT


3.3 Cost analysis Cost analysis for Glass waste stream was carried out based on the “Glass system process tree” shown in Figure 3.2. The data collected for the participating member states (Table 4.6) shows that all Green Dot organizations from the participating member states apply to the specific process tree. Figure 3.2: System process diagram for recycling of Glass

The cost of recycling depends on four main parameters:

1. The collection method used

2. Transport vehicles used and program optimization

3. The sorting practices used

4. The recycling or final disposal practices

Other costs in the recycling process involve administration costs, communication costs, equipment purchasing, land acquisition etc. For the purposes of this study, which focuses on the comparison between island and mainland recycling feasibility, country specific costs for these categories are not relevant. We expect this choice to result in a slight underestimation of costs of recycling in islands i.e. due to higher land values than in the mainland.

Glass Packaging

Waste Collection Sorting Transport 1 Recycling

Transport 2 Aggregate Use/

Energy recovery/Export/ Landfill

Transport to Bring Back

center


Country Data Source Collection Sorting Treatment

Cyprus Green Dot Cyprus –Own data

- Bring in Site collection Source separated

No sorting Used as aggregate in cement production

Greece HERCCo

Mainland - Bring in Site collection (blue bins) - No source separation (glass is mixed with other packaging material)

Sorting in various MRFs - local recycling -Export

Islands - Bring in Site collection Source separated

Sorting in local MRF or transport to nearest island with MRF Shipped to mainland

Malta Green Dot Malta – WasteServe Data

-Bring in Site collection Source separated

Hand sorting in Sant' Antnin Waste Treatment Plant Exported

France Eco -Emballages

Mainland - Bring in Site collection Source separated

Sorting in various MRFs

- local recycling -Export

Islands - Bring in Site collection Source separated in islands

-Sorting in local MRF or -no sorting

- shipped to mainland (Martinique) -shipped to S.Africa (Reunion)

Table 3.7: Results of the data collection activity for Glass


The results of the data collection activity are presented in Table 3.8. Table 3.8: Cost/ revenue Analysis for Glass recycling in €/ton (data provided by Green Dot organizations)

Cost Category Cyprus Malta Greece Greece

Island France France Island

France Island

Mainland (Syros) Mainland (Martinique) (Reunion) Costs

Collection 75 270 36 67 36 250 100 Sorting

n/a 55 59 71 113*** n/a - (including bailing)

Transport 1 n/a n/a 16 10 15*** n/a n/a

Recycling n/a 0 - n/a - n/a - Transport 2 40 0 16 10 -

160

Export n/a 105 0 50 60 Total Expenses 115 430 127 208 164 410 160

Revenues Selling of Waste n/a * 36.5** 36.5** 36.5** 36.5** 36.5** 36.5** Net Expenses 115 393.5 90.5 171.5 127.5 373.5 123.5

*the collected glass is not sold, n/a stands for non-applicable, - no data available **for comparison reasons the selling value was set the same ***Eunomia study Table 3.9: Percentages of costs per expense category (based on Table 4.8)


Island France France Is-land

France Island

Mainland (Syros) Mainland (Martinique) (Reunion) Collection 65 63 28 32 22 61 63 Sorting

n/a 13 46 34 69 n/a - (including bailing) Transport 1 n/a n/a 13 5 9 n/a n/a Recycling n/a 0 - n/a - n/a - Transport 2 35 0 13 5 - Export n/a 24 0 24 39 38 Total Expenses 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Revenues Selling of Waste n/a 8 29 18 0 9 23

3.4 Cost/ revenue analysis In the case of Glass waste a general overview of net expenses shows that the expenses are obviously higher in islands and island member states than the mainland. The low costs in Cyprus arise due to the fact that all collected waste glass is used as aggregate in the cement industry and thus exports costs, which are a significant percentage of the net expense, are avoided.


The comparison of the net expenses between mainland Greece and the island of Syros is a good example of the significantly higher costs of glass waste management in the islands taking in mind that this cost is twice higher in Syros. The same result is found by comparing the French mainland and the French island of Martinique.

An examination of the cost categories reveals the following:

1. Collection costs are significantly higher in islands and island member states. According to the participating Green Dot organizations this is attributed to the underutilization of collection equipment in islands due to the small volumes of waste.

2. Sorting associated costs seem to be lower in islands than the mainland. This is due to the fact that in islands sorting activities are usually limited to just bailing of waste or other simple technologically solutions i.e. manual sorting, that are less costly than the integrated or large scale, sorting plans operating in the mainland in order to satisfy the large volumes of waste collected.

3. The transport related costs are generally lower in islands due to the small travel distances involved to carry the waste from the collection/sorting place to a port to be exported.

4. Export costs are significantly higher in islands. This is attributed to the long distances ships needed to travel to carry collected/ sorted waste to the mainland where all waste management infrastructure and industry is located. It is also attributed to the low volumes of waste that are exported each time from the islands (ships do not reach their full capacities) that make constitute transport costs per ton to be higher than if exported form the mainland.

3.5 Identification of environmental impacts In this section an environmental impact analysis of the recycling of glass is presented for the collection and transport, sorting and recycling activities.

3.5.1 Collection & Transport: The collection and transport activity refers to the Kerbside collection of waste which is carried out by collection trucks from door to door while transport refers to the transport of waste by collection trucks from kerbside to the sorting/recycling centres

The results of the environmental impact analysis of the collection and transport activities for Glass waste is presented in Table 3.10


Table 3.10: Atmospheric emissions from the collection and transport activities of Glass waste Kerbside collection Cyprus Malta Greece France Declared production 18684 12312 150000 3145141 tn Collection Rate 10.4 16.6 18.0 61.6 % Collected Waste 1943 2044 27000 1937000 tn

Distance per trip 35 8 45 11 Km

Number of trips per year 194 204 2700 193700 trip

Fuel consumption per Year 4074 958 72101 1243567 L Fuel consumption per recovered Ton 2.10 0.47 2.67 0.64 L/tn Carbon dioxide emissions 5.74 1.28 7.31 1.76

Kg/tn

Nitrous Oxide emissions 0.15 0.03 0.19 0.04 Sulphur Dioxide emissions 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ammonia emissions 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Carbon Monoxide emissions 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00

The relevant data used for the environmental impact assessment are presented in Table 3.11: Table 3.11: Data used for environmental impact assessment Fuel consumption 0.60 L/km Carbon dioxide 2738.0 g/L Diesel Nitrous Oxide 70.0 g/L Diesel Sulphur Dioxide 0.8 g/L Diesel Ammonia 0.0 g/L Diesel Carbon Monoxide 4.5 g/L Diesel

Source: WISARD for a glass collection lorry

3.5.2 Sorting: Sorting is carried out in waste sorting facilities and includes separation of glass from other packag-ing waste such as plastics, metals and paper and removal of contaminants from the waste stream. Sorting by color is not considered in this assessment. The crushing and sorting activity can be car-ried out in a dedicated sorting facility with subsequent transfer of the produced cullet to the glass industry. Nowadays most glass industries have their own sorting process as part of their opera-tions. In this study we examine the first case. It is also assumed that all residual waste is diverted to landfill.

Table 3.12: Atmospheric emissions from glass sorting activities (tons) Inputs Ecoinvent

reference (Kg per kg sorted

Cyprus Malta Greece France


waste recovered 1.080

- - 27000.000 1937000.000

lubricants 0.0001 - - 0.00003 0.00209 water (cooling) 0.271 - - 7.319 525.082 water (process) 0.001 - - 0.016 1.130 electricity, from grid 0.004 - - 0.109 7.845 diesel (internal transport)* 0.001

- - 0.017 1.234

Outputs

- -

Sorted waste 0.926 - - 25000.000 1793518.518 waste water, 0.001 - - 15.746 1129.658 residual waste 0.093 - - 2509.218 180013.158

dirty glass 0.064 - - 1716.305 123129.000 aluminium 0.006 - - 160.590 11520.842

minerals 0.005 - - 132.989 9540.697 plastics 0.004 - - 120.442 8640.632

paper 0.004 - - 117.933 8460.618 cork 0.001 - - 32.620 2340.171

metals 0.001 - - 27.601 1980.145 lead 0.001 - - 27.601 1980.145

other waste 0.000 - - 8.782 630.046 humidity 0.006 - - 164.354 11790.862

Atmospheric emissions

- -

Sulphur Dioxide - - 0.00006 0.00000

Nitrous Oxide - - 0.00002 0.00000

Carbon dioxide - - 0.00524 0.42461 -Data source: Ecoinvent database report N.11 - Cyprus and Malta do not sort the collected waste glass - No SO2 and NOx for France as more than 90% of its energy is produced by nuclear

Table 3.13: Data used for environmental impact assessment

Carbon dioxide 7.5E-04 6.2E-04 5.1E-07 5.4E-05 tn/Kwh

Nitrous Oxide 1.9E-07 1.7E-06 2.2E-07 0.0E+00 tn/Kwh

Sulphur Dioxide 5.6E-07 2.8E-06 4.8E-05 0.0E+00 tn/Kwh Energy Consumption** 30 30 30 30 Kwh/t

* Statistics and prospects for the European electricity sector (1980-2000, 2004, 2005, 2006 2010-2030)

**BIO INTELLIGENCE SERVICE, 2005


3.5.3 Treatment: Glass coming out of sorting facilities can be of various qualities and grades. Sorted glass is either used in for the production of new glass products or it is used as aggregate i.e. in the cement indus-try or landfill cover.

In Cyprus, the collected waste glass is used as aggregate in local cement factories. This activity is not associated with any significant environmental impacts other than the atmospheric emissions involved in the transport of the waste. These emissions are too low in quantities to address them as a significant environmental impact.

In Malta, the whole of glass waste collected is exported to EU mainland countries for treatment due to the lack of the necessary recycling infrastructure on the island. Exports are made both to EU and Asian countries but the latest data obtained show Portugal as the main receiver of Malta’s waste Glass. The export of the waste glass is associated with an amount of atmospheric emissions (main-ly) regarding the 2500 km ship voyage to Portugal. These emissions are estimated to 674tns of CO2, 1.5tns of NO2 and 15tns of SO2 assuming only one export trip per year is carried out. The export emissions of the waste are significantly higher than the collection emissions associated with glass waste management in Malta.

In Greece and France, the glass waste recovered are recycled locally and used in the local glass industry. Understandably, the produced cullet could be used in a great variety of ways i.e. as ag-gregate in road tarmac, in cement factories, in glass fibre production. Since it is not possible to ex-amine all possible uses, the study deals only with the use of glass cullet for the production of new glass.

The production of glass is carried out in glass factories where the following production steps are generally carried out: preparation and sorting of cullets, melting of cullets, forming of glass containers, cooling down, packaging and palletting until the empty glass containers are ready to be transported to the market. Sorting is discussed in the previous chapter and packaging and palleting is not of concern in this study since the main environmental impacts are associated with the melting of cullets and the use of raw material.

Due to lack of specific data on the technologies and infrastructure of the glass production units in Greece and France, the assessment is carried out based on Ecoinvent database data that apply to a typical European production plant. The assessment is carried out to estimate the environmental inputs/outputs from the recycling (into new glass) of the waste glass recycled in Greece and France in 2007, assuming that for the production of 1t of glass, 40% of waste glass is used.


Table 3.14: Environmental Inputs and Outputs from glass waste recycling

ecoinvent (for 1t of

glass melt-ed)


units

glass waste recycled (2007)

1943 2044 27000 1937000 t Glass produced

- - 67500 4842500 t

inputs silica sand 0.35 t - - 23.63 1694.88 kt

Carbonates 0.2 t - - 13.50 968.50 kt Other minor ingredients 0.02 t - - 1.35 96.85 kt furnace refractory material 0.008 t - - 0.54 38.74 kt molds 0.005 t - - 0.34 24.21 kt energy (furnace fuel) 1805.5 kWh - - 121871.25 8743133.75 MWh energy(electricity) 222.2 kWh - - 14998.50 1076003.50 MWh water 1.8 m3 - - 121500.00 8716500.00 m3

Output Atmospheric

emissions CO2 430 kg - - 29025 2082275 tn

Nox 2.4 kg - - 162 11622 tn SO2 2.5 kg - - 168.75 12106.25 tn Dust 0.4 kg - - 27 1937 tn HCL 0.041 kg - - 2.7675 198.5425 tn

HF 0.008 kg - - 0.54 38.74 tn Metals 0.006 kg - - 0.405 29.055 tn

Water evaporation 1.8 t - - 121.5 8716.5 tn Waste water 1.6 m3 - - 108000 7748000 m3

solid waste 0.01 t - - 0.675 48.425 tn

On the other hand, the substitution of raw materials for the production of cement by the use of waste glass has the environmental benefits of the energy savings, natural resources savings, landfill space savings and the associated landfill pollution on the atmosphere, soil, water etc.

It is argued that for every ton of cullet added to the furnace about 12 kg of oil are saved (Ministry of Environment of Greece, 2010), emissions are reduced by 20%, virgin material extraction by 80% and water use by 50%.


4 Metal Metals are a small part of the municipal waste stream, though an important one from an environmental perspective as they are deconstructed in really low rates by nature. According to European Environmental Agency (2010)① 3% of the municipal wastes in the EU are metals (2% Ferrous and 1% Aluminium). This translates, to approximately 16 kg/person of metal waste every year in EU. The metals component in municipal waste is usually made up of ferrous and aluminium cans (drinks and food) and caps. The management of metals waste in the EU is the same as the glass waste and all the types of packaging waste and is based on the EU waste strategy②, which may be summarised as:

• prevention or reduction of waste production and its harmfulness. • recovery of waste by means of recycling, re-use or reclamation or any other process with a

view to extracting secondary raw materials, • use of waste as a source of energy

Recycling rates for post-consumer scrap metals have increased steadily during the past decade in the EU. In 2007, 67% recycling of metals produced in EU has been achieved (Eurostat, 2011). The following Table 5.1 demonstrates the metal production and recycling rates in the participating in REPT countries. Table 4.1: Production and recycling of metal packaging waste in the participating countries for 2007 (Eurostat, 2011) Metals Produced as Packaging Waste

(tones / % of PPW) Metals recycled (tones / % of Metals Produced)

Cyprus 5 782 / 9 - 4 053 / 70,1 -

Malta 4 903 / 11 - 275 / 5,6 -

Greece

145 000 / 15

Aluminium:

25 000 / 2 73 515 / 50,7

Aluminium:

8 500 / 34

Steel: 120 000 / 13 Steel: 65 000 / 54,2

France 673 440 / 6

Aluminium:

53 202 / 0,6 433 695 / 64,4 Aluminium:

21 031 / 39,5

① EIONET: http://scp.eionet.europa.eu/themes/waste

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_waste



Metals Produced as Packaging Waste (tones / % of PPW)

Metals recycled (tones / % of Metals Produced)

Steel:

620 238 / 5,4

Steel:

412 891 / 66,6

EU

4 834 072 / 7

- 3 243 570 / 67 -

-no data available Metals can be recycled again and again without losing any of their properties (Waste Online, 2005).


4.1.1 Collection Due to the fact that metals and especially steel can be pick up even from unsorted residual waste thanks to its magnetic properties all the collection methods of metals can be implemented. Though, packaging metals consist from (mainly) aluminum and other metals as well. Aluminum is not affected by magnetism thus either separate collection must be implemented or by using electromagnetic induction.

In order to avert the flow of metals sent to landfills a network of collection programs can be implemented. Kerbside recycling programs which include municipal collection of recyclables is a major way of collection supported by centralized drop off centers; buy back centers.

Buy-Back centres: Just like glass, metals Buy-Back schemes are adopted by local or national authorities and involve the take back of selected metal items in exchange of money (in most cases). This kind of metal collection is mainly used for the collection of drinks aluminium cans. Thus this collection method of metals offers the chance of a less costly sorting and treatment. Though, not all kinds of metals can always be collected. Kerbside Collection Metals: Metal collected through Kerbside programs consist of a variety of collection methods depending on household separation to ferrous or non-ferrous metals, on separate collection of each packaging waste stream or on single stream commingled collection including metal :

1. Ferrous and Non–ferrous sorted collection: The metal items are placed in separated containers according to their chemical texture to ferrous (steel) or non-ferrous (aluminium) prior their collection and are collected separately. With this kind of separation metals are send directly for treatment reducing the total cost of packaging waste sorting. On the other hand movements of collection vehicles could be


increased, increasing as well the total cost of the process. Moreover, this kind of method is difficult as householder cannot easily separate ferrous and non-ferrous metals.

2. Texture-mixed collection:

In this kind of Kerbside metal collection systems, metal is collected texture-mixed but separate from other recyclables. Metal collected in this manner has to be sorted in the sorting facility in ferrous and non-ferrous metals. Thus separate collection of metals from other packaging waste can be more costly than any other collection method as it increases the number of trips of the collection vehicles with separate compartments.

3. Single Stream Commingled Collection Including Metal This kind of metal packaging collection is used in most of the cases. This collection method involves collection of metal within a single stream including paper, plastic and glass. As metal can be separated through magnetic and electromagnetic induction procedures, existence of other packaging waste in the stream dose not affects the quality or the quantity of metals being collected. With this collection method less possible movements of collection vehicles can be implemented.

Drop-off recycling

This collection method involves the installation of bins in locations within a city so that people can transfer and dispose their packaging waste including metals. In most of the cases metals are collected mixed with other packaging waste meaning that sorting is required. The collection of the material is done with the use of an open truck equipped to empty the bins. Packaging waste including metal collection points are very common near shopping centres, at civic amenity sites and in local neighbourhoods in a close distance to each other.

4.1.2 Sorting Metal sorting is needed in order to differentiate between metal. In packaging waste there are two main types of metal: steel and aluminium.

Mechanical sorting

Firstly, air classifiers can be used to separate metals from the rest packaging waste, such as paper and plastic packaging, by allowing these lighter materials to be removed from the stream by a jet of air that is too weak to carry the heavier metal components of the waste (Wernick and Themelis, 1998). Secondly, aluminium – a non-ferrous metal – can be sorted by “eddy current separation” using electromagnetic induction; and steel packaging – a ferrous metal – can be separated simply by using an electromagnet. Those two methods are mostly used to separate those metals in the metal packaging waste sector due to the fact that are very simple and with a good level of accuracy.

Contaminant Separation

After the mechanical sorting, the purity of the ‘good’ stream is also manually checked. Human involvement also catches ‘false’ rejections, which can be around 10% of the total. Last but not least sorted metals are cleaned and sold back to the industry for further treatment (APEAL, 2010).




4.1.3 Treatment Metal packaging has the attribute to be recycled again and again without losing any of its characteristics and can be reformed in any shape. Therefore, the main treatment option and the one that is commonly used, is recycling.

Recycling Regarding aluminium which is not impaired by recycling - it can be repeatedly recycled. Re-melting used aluminium saves up to 95% of the energy needed to produce the primary product (European Aluminium Association, 2010). There are two ways to recycle aluminium (Alupro, 2009): o Closed loop recycling: is where scrap is sorted to those types that are going to be reformed

again (for example used cans recycled into ingot and then reformed to new cans). Though, input material must be shredded and then must be de-coated to take away paints and oils, before being melted and mould (Figure 5.1).

o Open loop recycling: is where a wider variety of aluminium packaging types are recycled together, with the resulting molten aluminium then re-alloyed to an extensive variety of specific end-market uses. In these processes collected material is simply fed into the kiln and melted through heat and stirring in a low oxygen environment, before moulding into ingot.

For a natural resources point of view, by recycling 1kg of aluminium saves up to 6kg of bauxite, 4kg of chemical products and 14 kWh of electricity. Aluminium recycling requires only 5% of the energy and produces only 5% of the CO2 emissions as compared with primary production and reduces the waste going to landfill. Aluminium is the most cost-effective material to recycle. A ton of recycled aluminium can save enough energy to run a television for three hours (Waste Online, 2005).

Figure 4.1: Closed-loop aluminium drink cans recycling (Alupro, 2009) o Steel unlike other materials, loses none of its strength or inherent attributes, even if recycled

again and again. Furthermore, the fact that steel is magnetic makes it the easiest and most economical material to sort and recover. Thus steel is a perfect material for recycling (APEAL, 2010).


Consequently, steel has turned to be the packaging material with the biggest rate of recycling in EU in 2008 according to the Figure 4.2.

Figure 4.2: Recycling rate of main packaging materials in Europe in 2008 (APEAL, 2010) The recycling procedure of steel is simple and includes the melting of the collected materials and the reformation of the products. Up to date steel production methods cause 2.2 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions annually according to the United Nations Environmental Programme in 2010. By recycling steel according to the same source: o Causes 75 per cent less greenhouse gas emissions than production from verging material. o For each 100 million tonnes of primary steel substituted by secondary or recycled steel, a

saving of around 150 million tonnes of CO2 is possible. Moreover, according to Waste Online (2005): o Two-thirds of all cars sold in supermarkets are made from steel o Recycling 1 tonne of steel scrap saves 80% of the CO2 emissions produced when making steel

from iron ore o Recycling seven steel cans saves enough energy to power a 60-watt light bulb for 26 hours


It is understandable that as steel recycling is increasing, CO2 emissions are decreasing in the steel production sector (Figure 4.3).

Figure 5.3: Relevance of Steel Recycling and CO2 Production in Steel Production Industry (APEAL, 2010) Except from the reduction in CO2 emissions every tonne of steel packaging recycled makes the following environmental savings (Waste Online, 2005): o 1.5 tonnes of iron ore o 0.5 tonnes of coal o 40% of the water required in production o 75% of the energy needed to make steel from virgin material o 1.28 tonnes of solid waste o Reduction of water pollution by 76%


4.2.1 Cyprus Metal waste stream is collected together with other waste streams (tetra pack and plastic) which all together form the PMD waste stream. Metals consist mainly from tin and aluminium cans and ferrous metals.

Firstly metals are sorted by citizens in special transparent bags. PMD stream is collected door to door (kerbside collection) once a week, using typical press trucks (three personnel trucks). Blue bins with the symbols of Green Dot are places next to each green bin which is used for household waste. Secondly, PMD stream is transported with the trucks at the two special sorting units that have been developed by the system for this purpose and then sorted into six or seven subcategories including metals. The material is sorted and arranged in these units based on specifications followed by other European systems so that the material may be efficiently recycled,


thus metals are additionally separated into their subcategories which are aluminium and ferrous metals.

The first sorting unit operates in Nicosia (Latsia Industrial Area) and currently receives PMD waste from the districts of Nicosia and Famagusta. The second one operates in Limassol (Moni area) and accepts the PMD stream of both Limassol and Paphos. The development of these two sorting units was undertaken by A.M. Interbalance consortium. Finally, both of the sorted waste streams transported to facilities locally or abroad for recycling.

4.2.2 Malta Metal packaging waste stream include all kind of household wastes fabricated from metals. Collection occurs through multiple ways such as door to door collection through the Recycle Tuesdays initiative and Bring in Sites method.

Packaging waste materials collected separately through the above mentioned management schemes are transferred to Sant' Antnin Waste Treatment Plant where they are further sorted by hand and then sent for recycling. The majority of packaging waste of Malta is treated overseas.

4.2.3 Greece In Greece, the most significant compliance scheme is operated by HE.R.Co and collects packaging waste through the appropriately labelled blue bins into which citizens can dispose their packaging waste, including metal. Then metals along with other packaging waste are sent to a number of material recovery facilities where recyclable materials are sorted before they are sent for further treatment to the correspondent industry sectors. Sorting centres can be found in the areas of: Attiki, Thessalloniki, Irakleio, Chania, Kalamata, Patra, Zakinthos, Shimatari, Lamia, Karditsa, Corfu, Katerini, Magnisia, Ioannina and shortly in Alexandroupolis and Rhodes.

Carrefour Marinopoulos, INFOQUEST, Sourotis, Atlantik, and Alfa Alfa Energy run a supplementary collective bring in site system where citizens can dispose metals along with other packaging waste in selected points. The system offers a mutual incentive to consumers.

Furthermore, A.B Marinopoulos S.A owns a private packaging collection system (includes removable collection center traveling around the country) which operates in 45 collection centers of high technology. As a matter of fact the scheme is a pay back system where consumers have the choice to donate the taken amount to a voluntary scheme.

4.2.4 France The packaging waste (including metals) management schemes and the methods they use in French mainland and in the selected islands have been described in Chapter 4.2.4.

Metal packaging waste stream can be collected together with other waste steams or separately; via bring in site network or door-to-door collection.

In Corsica as there is no sorting centre, lightweight packaging including metal is gathered in the ports (in bulk) before being shipped to a sorting line on the mainland. Two sorting lines are taking care of Corsica’s household packaging: one in La Seyne/Mer, and one in Martinigue. Treatment of metal packaging waste of Corsica is taking place in two different places. Those places are demonstrated in the following Table 5.2


Table 4.2: Recycling plants in mainland France for the treatment of materials from Corsica (Ochier Vincent, personal communication, 2009 - Action 3)

metals

Location of recycling plant Steel: Fos/mer

Aluminium: Compiègne

Type of recycling Steel factory,

alloy ingots

Distance travelled from sorting centre 50-100km,

750km


Type of packing bale

Saint Martin’s and Saint Bartelemy municipalities have been examined in Guadeloupe regarding the collection and treatment of packaging waste. Saint Martin’s municipality has a “bring in site” collection system and Saint Bartelemy municipality collects metal along with glass in the same container. Treatment procedures for glass and metals in the municipalities of Guadeloupe are demonstrated in the Tables 4.3 and 4.4 below. Table 4.3: Recycling Plants in Saint Barthelemy, Guadeloupe (Gislais Pascal, personal communication, 2009)

Saint Barthelemy Metals

Location of recycling plant

quantity of metals collected so far has not been enough to fill in a full container, so the material is just stored

Type of recycling

Distance travelled from sorting centre

Type of transport

Type of packing Table 4.4 Recycling Plants in Saint Martin, Guadeloupe (Gislais Pascal, personal communication, 2009)

Saint Martin Metals

Location of recycling plant Louisiana

Type of recycling Steel factory


Type of transport Ship

Type of packing 40’ and bulk

Martinique has three groups of municipalities using bring in site collection for packaging waste including metal. On the other hand, CACEM group of municipalities uses a door-to-door collection


system. Sorting of collected materials is held in the modernized sorting centre in Ducos, where materials are sorted and baled before being exported. Quantities of metal packaging have been sent gathered in a container to the mainland for further treatment.

Last but not least, Reunion CIREST group of municipalities uses a bring-site system, while CINOR, CIVIS, CC SUD and TCO group of municipalities are using a door-to-door collection system for lightweight packaging including metal. Three sorting centres exist in Reunion and they are placed in Sainte Marie, Pierrefonds and Le Port that perform manual sorting. Finally, after collection and sorting, metal is shipped and recycled abroad in various locations as shown in Table 4.5.

Table 4.5 Recycling plants for the treatment of materials from Reunion (Gislais Pascal, personal communication, 2009, PÖYRY Energy Consulting, 2006, PÖYRY Energy Consulting, 2007)

Metals Location of recycling plant India, Vietnam

Type of recycling Steel factory, refiner or melting factory

Distance travelled from sorting centre no information available Type of transport Ship Type of packing Bulk in 40’

4.3 Cost analysis Cost analysis for metal waste stream was carried out based on the “metal system process tree” shown in Figure 4.4. The data collected for the participating member states (Table 5.6) shows that all Green Dot organizations from the participating member states apply to the specific process tree. Figure 4.4: System process diagram for recycling of Metal

The cost of recycling depends on four main processes:


2. Transport



Metal Packaging

Waste

Collection

Sorting Recycling Transport

Energy recovery/Export/ Landfill Transport to Bring Bank

Curbside Collection


Other costs in the recycling process involve administration costs, communication costs, equipment purchasing, land acquisition etc. For the purposes of this study, which focuses on the comparison between island and mainland recycling feasibility, country specific costs for these categories are not relevant, despite the fact that such data were collected.



Cyprus Green Dot Cyprus –Own data - Kerbside Collection No source separation

Mechanical and Manual Sorting

- Local recycling - Export

Greece HERCCo

Mainland - Bring in Site collection (blue bins) No source separation - Kerbside Collection No source separation


Islands - Bring in Site collection Source separated - Kerbside Collection No source separation

Sorting in local MRF or transport to nearest island with MRF -Shipped to mainland


- Bring in Site collection Source separated - Kerbside Collection No source separation

Mechanical and manual sorting in Sant' Antnin Waste Treatment Plant -Exported


Mainland -Bring in Site collection Source separated - Kerbside Collection No source separation

Mechanical and manual sorting in various MRFs


Islands - Bring in Site collection Source separated in islands -very limited kerbside collection

-Manual sorting -Bailing

- shipped to mainland (Martinique) -shipped to Vietnam and India (Reunion)

Table 4.6: Results of the data collection activity for Metal


Table 4.7: Cost/ revenue Analysis for Metal recycling in €/ton (data provided by Green Dot organizations)

Cost Category Cyprus Malta Greece Greece Island France France Island France

Island Mainland (Syros) Mainland (Martinique) (Reunion)

collection 255 39 59 70 129 200 100 Sorting

160 120 71 130 114 216 100 Transport 8 0 21 - 15 - - Recycling n/a n/a 90 n/a 102 n/a n/a

Export 20 105 0** 50 0** 70 67* Total Expenses 443 264 241 250 360 486 267

Revenues 87,5 87,5 87,5 87,5 87,5 87,5 87,5 Net Expenses 355,5 176,5 153,5 162,5 272,5 398,5 179,5

costs refer to ferrous metals only, * Export to Vietnam, **local recycling

Table 4.8: Percentages of costs per expense category (based on Table 5.7)


Island France France Island

France Island

Mainland (Syros) Mainland (Martinique) (Reunion) Collection 58 15 24 28 36 41 37

Sorting 36 45 29 52 32 44 37

Transport 1 2 0 9 - 4 - - Recycling n/a n/a 37 n/a 28 n/a n/a

Export 5 40 0 20 0 14 25 Total Expenses 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Revenues Selling of Waste 20 33 36 35 24 18 33

4.4 Cost/ revenue analysis Based on the provided data (by Green Dot organizations) and due to limitations of data some cost categories it cannot be clearly concluded if there is a significant net expense difference between island and mainland management of the ferrous metal stream of PPW. There is however a general trend of higher costs in islands due to exporting just like the case of glass.


1. Collection costs are significantly higher in Cyprus than the other countries. This is attributed to the fact that in Cyprus collection is carried out only by kerbside collection while all other countries have implemented bring in sites as well.

2. Unlike the case of Glass, sorting costs are lower in the mainland rather than the islands. This is due to the fact that ferrous metal sorting both in islands and mainland is mostly


automated therefore similar infrastructures are needed. However due to low processing volumes the cost per ton of sorted waste is higher in than the mainland.


4. Export costs are a significant expense in islands. Mainland countries typically have recycling centers locally and do not need to export waste.

4.5 Identification of environmental impacts In this section an environmental impact analysis of the recycling of metals is presented for the collection and transport, sorting and recycling activities.


The results of the environmental impact analysis of the collection and transport activities for metals waste is presented in Table 4.9. Table 4.9: Atmospheric emissions from the collection and transport activities of metal waste Kerbside collection


Declared production 5782 4903 145000 673440 tn

Collection Rate 70.1 0.056 50.7 64.4 %

Collected Waste 4056 - 73500 433922 tn

Distance per trip 94 - 116 82 Km/trip

Number of trips 507 - 9188 54240 trip/year

Fuel consumption per Year 18983 - 427864 1774545 L/year

Fuel consumption per Ton 4.68 -

5.82 4.09 L/tn per year

Carbon dioxide 12.38418 - 15.40311 10.82095

Kg/tn

Carbon Monoxide 0.03198 - 0.03977 0.02794

Particulate matter 0.00769 - 0.00956 0.00672

Nitrogen Oxides 0.08869 - 0.11031 0.07750

Nitrous Oxide 0.00061 - 0.00076 0.00054

Sulphur Dioxide 0.00236 - 0.00294 0.00207

Ammonia 0.00009 - 0.00012 0.00008


The relevant data used for the environmental impact assessment are presented in Table 4.10: Table 4.10: Data used for environmental impact assessment

Fuel consumption 0.4 L/km

Carbon dioxide 2646.000

g/L Diesel

Carbon Monoxide 6.832

Particulate matter 1.642

Nitrogen Oxides 18.950

Nitrous Oxide 0.131

Sulphur Dioxide 0.505

Ammonia 0.020

(Ecoinvent report N13) for a 16t lorry adjusted for stop & go driving (p66)

4.5.2 Sorting: Sorting is carried out in waste sorting facilities and includes separation of metal from other packag-ing waste such as plastics and paper and removal of contaminants from the waste stream. For this waste stream data regarding atmospheric emissions during the sorting process were available and presented in Tables 4.11 and 4.12 below.

Table 4.11: Atmospheric emissions from metals sorting activities


Collected Waste 4056 2.7 73500 433922 tn/yr

Total energy consumption 121680.0 82.4 2205000.0 13017660.0 Kwh/year

Sulphur Dioxide 91.1 0.1 1518631.2 704.6

tn/year

Nitrous Oxide 0.02 0.00 375.71 0.00

Carbon dioxide 0.07 0.00 1127.14 0.00

Table 4.12: Data used for environmental impact assessment

So2 5.1E-07 0.0E+00 5.6E-07 2.8E-06 tn/Kwh

NOx 2.2E-07 0.0E+00 1.9E-07 1.7E-06 tn/Kwh

CO2 4.8E-05 5.4E-05 7.5E-04 6.2E-04 tn/Kwh

* Statistics and prospects for the European electricity sector (1980-2000, 2004, 2005, and 2006 2010-2030)



4.5.3 Treatment: The main metallic streams coming out of the sorting procedure are the aluminium and the steel stream. Out of these two streams the aluminium one is considered both economically and environmentally more valuable. This is because of the high price of the scrap aluminium and the large savings its recycling offers in comparison to the production of aluminium from raw material. In fact, the energy needed to melt aluminium scrap is as little as 5% of the energy needed for pri-mary aluminium production. From an environmental point of view, aluminium recycling is ecologi-cally advantageous since up to 95% energy savings can be achieved per tonne of aluminium pro-duced from scrap compared to primary aluminium.

Table 4.13: Scrap aluminium recycling savings


aluminium waste recycled (2007)

aluminium recycled (2007)

1 t 0 0 8500 21031 t

Savings:

bauxite 0.422222 t 0 0 3589 8880 t

crude oil 1.333333 t 0 0 11333 28041 t

alloying elements i.e.copper, iron,

magnesium, manganese, silicon, zinc

0.051111 t 0 0 434 1075 t

landfill space 0.444444 m3 0 0 3778 9347 m3

land disturbed for bauxite mining

1 m2 0 0 8500 21031 m2

bauxite residues 1.37 t 0 0 11645 28812 t

CO2 equivalent 9.8 t 0 0 83300 206104 t

SO2 emissions 0.064 t 0 0 544 1346 t

The most significant emissions resulting from the aluminium recycling process are emissions re-leased into the air. These include dust and smoke, metal compounds, organic materials, nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxides and chlorides. No quantitative data were available for these environmental parameters but state-of-the-art technology is used to extract fumes and other emissions and to re-duce fugitive emissions.


5 Paper Paper waste is the biggest part in the municipal waste stream and an important one from an environmental perspective as it is the most consumable good that uses large quantities of natural resources to be produced. According to European Environmental Agency① 35% of the municipal waste in the EU is paper. This translates to approximately 183 kg/person of paper waste in 2008 in EU. The paper packaging waste stream except from cardboard includes normal paper in a variety of colors. The management of paper waste in the EU is the same as all the types of packaging waste and is based on the EU waste strategy②, which may be summarised as:

• prevention or reduction of waste production and its harmfulness, • recovery of waste by means of recycling, re-use or reclamation or any other process with a

view to extracting secondary raw materials, • use of waste as a source of energy.

Recycling rates for paper and cardboard have increased steadily during the past decade in the EU. In 2007, 75% recycling of paper and board produced in EU has been achieved (Eurostat, 2011). Production and recycling rates for the participating countries in REPT are demonstrated in Table 5.1. Table 5.1: Production and recycling of paper packaging waste in the participating countries for 2007 (Eurostat, 2011) Paper Produced as Packaging

Waste (tones / % of Produced PPW)

Paper recycled (tones / % of Paper Produced)

Cyprus 25 485 / 39 9 990 / 39,2

Malta 18 029 / 41 1 460 / 8,1

Greece 400 000 / 40 318 000 / 79,5

France 4 471 656 / 43 3 979 774 / 89

EU 32 328 559 / 47 24 734 320 / 75 Paper can only be recycled 4-6 times, as the fibres of used paper get shorter and weaker each time. Therefore, in order to maintain the strength and quality of the fibre virgin pulp needs to be introduced into the process. Eventually, no matter how much paper is recycled will never stop the need to use virgin fibre (Waste Online, 2006). ① EIONET: http://scp.eionet.europa.eu/themes/waste




5.1.1 Collection As a matter of fact it is important that paper is kept separate from other waste as contaminated papers are not suitable for recycling. In the case of not separate collected paper mixed with other recyclable materials, this kind of paper must be specifically marked (Paper Online, 2010). Separate collection of waste, as the Confederation of European Paper Industries (CEPI) advocates in the review of the EU’s Waste Directive, is necessary to guarantee the quality and availability of recovered paper (European Recovered Paper Association, 2009).

There are two collection methods that applied best for the separate collection of paper waste stream. Those are the kerbside and the drop-off collection methods. Kerbside Collection Paper: Paper collected through Kerbside programs is based on scheduled collection dates. The collection vehicles follow a certain route and collect papers pilled on curbs which most of the times are placed (no matter the color or the type of paper) in appropriate colored bags (e.g. brown).

Drop-off (Bring – in) collection

Drop-off collection method for paper involves the installation of bins in chosen locations within a city so that people can transfer and dispose their paper waste stream. In most of the cases paper is collected separately from other packaging waste streams in order to avoid contamination. Sometimes however, collection in one stream for most of the packaging waste (except glass) is held. Separation at this case is taking place at the sorting centre. Though, this kind of collection worsens the quality of the paper right from the start of the recycling process. The collection of the material is done with the use of an open truck equipped to empty the bins. Paper collection points are very common near shopping centres, at car parks, at civic amenity sites, in areas where many offices located and industrial areas.

5.1.2 Sorting Paper sorting depends greatly to the end-user of the paper thus to the recycling process going to be followed.

For example in some cases paper products must be separated according to their composition and degree of deterioration. Sometimes, different types of paper can be mixed. On the other hand paperboard, are recycled using a single-grade process, meaning that no other type of paper should be combined in during its processing (Bureau of International Recycling, 2010).




Paper can be sorted to newspapers, mixed paper, cardboard, and office paper (Life Recycling Sympraxis, 2009).

There are different ways used for the sorting of paper and those can be summarized in the following:

Manual sorting

This kind of sorting is made by hand separating the different kind of papers (e.g. newspapers, printed papers, yellow pages, cardboards) in different piles. Though this kind of sorting is really slow and the level accuracy is not that high.

Automatic Sorting

There is a variety of automatic processes which have greater accuracy and speed than manual sorting. Some of the developed or under development automated sorting techniques used are listed below:

o Diffuse reflectance sorting using ultra violet (UV) light

o Sorting with the use of near-infrared (NIR) spectrometers

o Sorting with Template Matching

o Sorting with infrared spectroscopy

5.1.3 Treatment The best available treatment for paper is recycling due to the fact that paper has limited reusability and landfilling of paper produce methane which a potent greenhouse gas 20 times more drastic than CO2 (Waste Online, 2006).

Recycling

Little are the exemptions of used paper that cannot be recycled. Eventually recyclable paper can be considered newspaper, cardboard, packaging, stationery, direct mail, magazines, catalogues, greeting cards and wrapping paper (European Recovered Paper Association, 2009).


Recycling data from the period 2002 – 2007 for Europe, demonstrate a stable increase in recycling rate of paper per year as shown in Figure 5.1.

Figure 5.1: European Paper Recycling 1995-2007 (Paper Online, 2010)

The exact process followed for the recycling of paper is described in the Figure 5. 2 below. It has to be mentioned that depending on the quality of paper being produced from the recycling process, quantities of virgin pulp from sustainable sources may be added to improve the quality. There some types of papers that can be made from 100% recycled paper, such as newsprint and corrugated materials (SustainPack, 2009).

Figure 5.2: Fibre Recycling Process (SustainPack, 2009)


5.2 Practices used in Participating Countries Information provided in this chapter is based on data collection and demonstration applied in Action 3 of REPT project.

5.2.1 Cyprus As mentioned in Action 3 paper waste stream in Cyprus consists of dry cardboard boxes and packaging paper containers together with newspapers, magazines, office paper and advertising leaflets. Moreover is not mixed with other waste due to its nature therefore its collection can be less frequent (twice per month) since health issues and bad smells do not arise from its temporary at-home storage. Collection occurs directly from each household in predesigned days for each area and separately from other waste streams and it is carried out through kerbside collection with standard press type compression waste collection vehicles. Furthermore a number of brown bins (bring points) have been located for the collection of paper. Thereinafter the materials are taken to a paper sorting unit which sorts each type of paper and prepares it through for recycling in Cyprus or abroad.

5.2.2 Malta For Malta according to Action 3 paper waste stream can been collected in the same way as Metal and Plastic Waste streams described in Chapter 2.2.2.

All of the selected waste streams related to PW including paper after been collected are transferred to Sant' Antnin Waste Treatment Plant where they are further sorted by hand and then sent for recycling. The majority of the collected waste is sent to be recycled abroad and a small portion is recycled locally.

5.2.3 Greece As mentioned before packaging waste compliance schemes existing in Greece and Greek islands have been described in Chapter 1.2.3. HE.R.Co’s compliance scheme collects paper packaging waste mixed with other packaging waste in blue bins located in a variety of places (e.g. neighbourhoods). After collection packaging waste is sent to the sorting centres around the country as described in previous chapters. Regarding, Greek Islands HE.R.Co is applying separate collection stream on the collection of paper.

Carrefour Marinopoulos’s, INFOQUEST’s, Sourotis’s, Atlantik’s and Alfa Alfa Energy’s collective bring in site system collects paper packaging waste in selected points offering a mutual incentive to the consumers.

Last but not least, A.B Marinopoulos S.A’s private pay back packaging collection system and its remote collection center collect paper packaging along with other packaging waste giving back a small amount of money which consumers can choose to offer it to a voluntary scheme.

5.2.4 France The packaging waste (including paper) management schemes and the methods they use in French mainland and in the selected French islands have been described in Chapter 4.2.4 as mentioned before.


Paper packaging waste stream can be collected together with other waste steams or separately; via bring in site network or door-to-door collection due to the 1,300 local authorities implementing collections systems and the wide variability of collection features been followed.

In Corsica a bring in site collection system is applied collecting mixed packaging waste including paper and as there is no sorting centre, collected quantities are gathered in the ports (in bulk) before being shipped to a sorting line on the mainland. Two sorting lines are taking care of Corsica’s household packaging: one in La Seyne/Mer, and one in Martigues. Treatment of paper packaging waste of Corsica is taking place in Arles. Further information about treatment of paper packaging waste is shown in Table 5.2. Table 5.2: Recycling plants in mainland France for the treatment of materials from Corsica (Ochier Vincent, personal communication, 2009)

cardboard

Location of recycling plant Arles

Type of recycling papermill




Like in Corsica Guadeloupe and more precisely Saint Martin’s municipality collection of packaging is made through a bring-in site network. On the other hand, in the municipality of Saint Bartelemy cardboard and plastic packaging is incinerated to produce energy along with residual waste. Treatment procedures for paper in the municipality of Saint Martin’s in Guadeloupe examined is demonstrated in the table below. Table 5.3: Recycling Plants in Saint Martin, Guadeloupe (Gislais Pascal, personal communication, 2009)

Saint Martin cardboard

Location of recycling plant Europe


Distance travelled from sorting centre 7500km (feeder to PTP)


Type of packing 40’ baled

In Martinique bring in site mix collection system of packaging waste including paper has been chosen from three groups of municipalities. While, CACEM group of municipalities has chosen a door-to-door collection system. Paper packaging such us beverage cartons, newspapers and magazines are not collected in Martinique as there is no outlet. Sorting is taking place on the island in Ducos before collected materials been exported in bales for further treatment. In the following Table, information about treatment plants that serve paper packaging waste of Martinique are demonstrated.


Table 6.4: Recycling plants for the treatment of Martinique’s packaging waste (Gislais Pascal, personal communication, 2009, Inddigo Consulting, 2006)

cardboard

Location of recycling plant Europe



Type of transport Ship

Type of packing Baled in 40’

Bring-in site and door to door collection system for lightweight packaging waste including paper is used in Reunion as well as in Martinique. There are three sorting centres operating on the island that perform manual sorting. As there is no local treatment for packaging waste after collection and sorting, packaging including paper is shipped and recycled abroad in various locations as shown in Table 6.5.

Table 6.5: Recycling plants for the treatment of materials from Reunion (Gislais Pascal, personal communication, 2009, PÖYRY Energy Consulting, 2006, PÖYRY Energy Consulting, 2007)

cardboard

Location of recycling plant South Africa, Indonesia

Type of recycling paper mill

Distance travelled from sorting centre No information available

Type of transport ship Type of packing Baled in 40’

5.3 Cost/ Revenue analysis Cost analysis for paper waste stream was carried out based on the “paper system process tree” shown in Figure 5.3. The data collected for the participating member states (Table 5.6) shows that all Green Dot organizations from the participating member states apply to the specific process tree. Figure 5.3: System process diagram for recycling of Paper

Paper Packaging

Waste

Collection

Sorting Recycling Transport 2

Energy recovery/Export/ Landfill Transport to Bring

Bank

Curbside Collection




6. Transport



Other costs in the recycling process involve administration costs, communication costs, equipment purchasing, land acquisition etc. For the purposes of this study, which focuses on the comparison between island and mainland recycling feasibility, country specific costs for these categories are not relevant, despite the fact that such data were collected.




- Kerbside Collection No source separation

Mechanical and Manual Sorting - Export

Greece HERCCo













-Manual sorting -Baling

- shipped to mainland Europe (Martinique) -shipped to S.Africa and Indonesia (Reunion)

Table 5.6: Results of the data collection activity for Paper


Table 5.7: Cost/ revenue Analysis for Paper recycling in €/ton (data provided by Green Dot organizations)


Island France France Island France Island

Mainland (Syros) Mainland (Martinique) (Reunion) collection 167 145 59 80 130 200 100 Sorting

50 60 71 - 139 216 100 (including bailing)

Recycling n/a n/a 85 n/a 91 n/a n/a

Transport 3 - 6 65

23 100 67

Export 17 105 n/a n/a Total Expenses 237 310 221 145 383 516 267

Revenues Selling of Waste 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 Net Expenses 167 240 151 75 313 446 197




Mainland (Syros) Mainland (Martinique) (Reunion) Collection 70 47 27 55 34 39 37 Sorting

21 19 32 - 36 42 37 (including bailing) Recycling n/a n/a 38 n/a 24 n/a n/a Transport 1 - 3

45 6

19 25 Export 7 34 n/a n/a Total Expenses 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Revenues Selling of Waste 30 23 32 48 18 14 26

5.4 Cost/ revenue analysis As in the case of Metal waste, the provided data do not clearly portray a higher net expense of paper management in the islands than in the mainland.


1. Collection costs are higher in the islands in contrast to the mainland

2. Sorting costs are lower in Cyprus and Malta because it involves mostly direct bailing of waste




5.5 Identification of environmental impacts In this section an environmental impact analysis of the recycling of paper and cardboard is presented for the collection and transport, sorting and recycling activities.


The results of the environmental impact analysis of the collection and transport activities for paper and cardboard waste is presented in Table 5.9 Table 5.9: Atmospheric emissions from the collection and transport activities of paper and cardboard waste Kerbside collection


Declared production 25485 18029 400000 4471656 tn

Collection Rate 39.2 8.1 79.5 89.0 %

Collected Waste 9990 1460 318000 3979774 tn

Distance per trip 38 1 27 9 Km/trip

Number of trips 1249 183 39750 497472 trip/year

Fuel consumption per Year 18983 1 427864 1774545 L/year

Fuel consumption per Ton 1.90 0.0004 1.35 0.45 L/tn per year

Carbon dioxide 5.02805 0.00094223 3.56015 1.17983

Kg/tn

Carbon Monoxide 0.01298 0.00000243 0.00919 0.00305

Particulate matter 0.00312 0.00000058 0.00221 0.00073

Nitrogen Oxides 0.03601 0.00000675 0.02550 0.00845

Nitrous Oxide 0.00025 0.00000005 0.00018 0.00006

Sulphur Dioxide 0.00096 0.00000018 0.00068 0.00023

Ammonia 0.00004 0.00000001 0.00003 0.00001

The relevant data used for the environmental impact assessment are presented in Table 5.10:


Table 5.10: Data used for environmental impact assessment Fuel consumption 0.4 L/km


g/L Diesel

Carbon Monoxide 6.832



Nitrous Oxide 0.131


Ammonia 0.020

(Ecoinvent report N13) for a 16t lorry adjusted for stop & go driving (p66)

5.5.2 Sorting: Sorting is carried out in waste sorting facilities and includes separation of paper and cardboard from other packaging waste such as plastics and metal and removal of contaminants from the waste stream.

Table 5.11: inputs and outputs of paper and cardboard sorting activities

Input

ecoinvent reference ( per kg sort-ed )


waste recycled locally 1.080

9990 1460 318000 3979774 tns

extruded rod 1.20000000 g 11.988 1.752 381.600 4775.729 tns

lubrication oil 0.012 g 0.1199 0.018 3.816 47.757 tns

electricity 0.009 kWh 0.0929 0.014 2.957 37.012 tns

Light fuel oil 0.365 g 3.646 0.533 116.070 1452.618 tns

Output

plastics 2.500 g 24.975 3.650 795.000 9949.435 tns

sealed paper 14.250 g 142.358 20.805 4531.500 56711.780 tns

polluted paper 1.500 g 14.985 2.190 477.000 5969.661 tns Atmospheric emissions

Sulphur Dioxide

5.1615E-08 2.64204E-

07 1.51175E-06 0 tns

Nitrous Oxide

1.7205E-08 1.56781E-

07 6.6007E-07 0 tns

Carbon dioxide

6.95426E-05

5.76604E-05 0.000141778 0.002003289 tns


Table 5.12: Data used for environmental impact assessment So2 5.11174E-07 0 5.55556E-07 2.84375E-06 tn/Kwh

Nox 2.23193E-07 0 1.85185E-07 1.6875E-06 tn/Kwh

CO2 4.79401E-05 5.41255E-05 0.000748519 0.000620625 tn/Kwh



5.5.3 Treatment: Paper recycling has great benefits for the environment even though usage of verging pulp is not avoided as virgin fibres are essential in the renewal of the recycling process but are also needed for the production of specific paper grades (European Recovered Paper Association, 2009). Consequently for every tonne of waste paper used for recycling the savings are (Waste Online, 2006):

o at least 30 000 litres of water

o 3000 - 4000 KWh electricity (enough for an average 3 bedroom house for one year)

o 95% of air pollution.

Moreover, according to Bureau of International Recycling (2010):

• Recycling one tonne of paper saves up to 31 trees, 4,000 kWh of energy, 1.7 barrels (270 litres) of oil, 10.2 million Btu's of energy, 26,000 litres of water and 3.5 cubic metres of landfill space.

• Burning that same tonne of paper would generate about 750 kilograms of carbon dioxide.

• Recycling paper saves 65% of the energy needed to make new paper and also reduces water pollution by 35%

Table 5.13: Savings from recycling of waste paper

Source of data: Bureau of International Recycling (2010)


aluminium waste recycled (2007)

38 0 295848 1505623 aluminium recycled 1 t t

Savings: water 30000 liters 1140000 0 8875440000 45168690000 l

electricity 4000 Kwh 152000 0 1183392000 6022492000 kwh trees 31

1178 0 9171288 46674313

oil 270 liters 10260 0 79878960 406518210 m3 landfill space 3.5 m3 133 0 1035468 5269680.5 m2

CO2 emissions(if burned) 0.75 t 28.5 0 221886 1129217.25 t


6 Plastic Plastic is after paper the second larger waste stream participating in the municipal waste stream. Plastic is an important material from an environmental point of view as well as production of it and rejection to the environment can cause a variety of environmental impacts. Plastic is a hard biodegradable material (possibly up to hundreds of year to degrade) sand its production process uses great quantities of natural recourses (e.g. water and oil) and can produce hazardous air emissions. According to European Environmental Agency① 11% of the municipal waste in the EU is plastic. This translates to approximately 58 kg/person of plastic waste in 2008 in EU. The plastic packaging waste stream includes 50 different groups of plastics. As mentioned before for the rest of the selected packaging waste streams, the management of plastic waste in the EU is the same as all the types of packaging waste and is based on the EU waste strategy, which may be summarised as:

• prevention or reduction of waste production and its harmfulness, • recovery of waste by means of recycling, re-use or reclamation or any other process with a

view to extracting secondary raw materials, • use of waste as a source of energy.

Recycling rates for plastic have increased steadily during the past decade in the EU staying though in low levels comparing to the rest packaging waste streams. In 2007 an average 27% recycling of plastic produced as packaging in EU has been achieved (Eurostat, 2011). Production and recycling rates for the participating countries in REPT are demonstrated in Table 6.1. Table 6.1: Production and recycling of plastic packaging waste in the participating countries for 2007 (Eurostat, 2011)

Plastic Produced as Packaging Waste (tones / % of PPW Produced)

Plastic recycled (tones / % of Plastic Produced)

Cyprus 14.710 / 23 2 104 / 14.3

Malta 8 797 / 20 932 / 10,6

Greece 295 000 / 30 40 415 / 13.7

France 2 113 930 / 20 446 039 / 21.1

EU 15 252 274 / 22 4 183 133 / 27.4

Plastic can be recycled again and again if first has been sorted properly. There are seven main types of plastic that can be used in packaging sector which are demonstrated in the Table 6.2.


Table 6.2: Standard Marking Code of the Main Types of Plastic and Usage Examples (WasteOnline, 2006)


6.1.1 Collection Collection of plastic has not many differences than collecting other packaging waste streams. Though, it should be kept in mind that most cost effective and environmentally friendly treatment is held when plastics are not contaminated with other waste streams and they are not dirty with food residues (more water and energy to be cleaned). Moreover, plastics can be separated in 7 major categories which do not use the same recycling procedures. The methods followed for the collection of plastics are mentioned below.

Buy-Back centres: Plastic as other waste stream Buy-Back schemes is adopted by local or national authorities and involves the take back of selected metal items in exchange of money (in most cases). This kind of plastic collection is mainly used for the collection of drinks plastic (PET) bottles. Thus this collection method of plastic offers the chance of a less costly sorting and treatment. In contrast, not all kinds of plastics can always be collected.


Kerbside Collection: Kerbside collection for plastic is the main method used in the EU but most of the time is supported from other collection methods. There is a variety of methods for the kerbside collection of plastic depending on household separation to the seven types of plastic or to the separate collection of each packaging waste or on single stream commingled collection (except glass) including plastic: o Plastic sorted by type collection:

All the plastic packaging has a standard marking code. Following those codes consumers can separate plastics at home. Then, plastics are placed in appropriately marked plastic bags and collected from Kerbside by the collection vehicles separately from other waste streams. This kind of collection though is very time consuming, has a significant transportation cost and is very difficult to be handled from the consumers. On the other hand there is no sorting cost and the quality of the final product is upgraded.

o Separate collection with mix types of plastic:

In this kind of Kerbside plastic collection, all types of plastic is collected together but separately from other recyclables. Plastic collected in this way has to be sorted in the sorting facility in the predefined types of plastic depending on the treatment procedure going to be followed. Thus separate collection of plastic from other packaging waste can be more costly than any other collection method as it increases the number of trips of the collection vehicles with separate compartments (fewer trips than sorted by type collection) and still sorting must be applied if the treatment procedure demands it.

o Single Stream Commingled Collection Including plastic

Single stream collection of plastic is the main method used. This collection method involves collection of plastic within a single stream including paper and metal (most of the times glass is excluded). Plastic needs to be uncontaminated enough in order treatment not to be problematic, therefore sorting in single stream collection of plastic needs to be as more accurate as it could be increasing the final cost. Conversely less transportation is needed decreasing the cost of the final product.

Drop-off recycling This collection method requires the consumers to transfer their packaging waste including plastic in specified locations within the city were appropriate collection bins have been installed. In most of the cases plastic is collected mixed with other packaging waste meaning that sorting is required. In some cases though separate collection for each waste stream is held meaning that less sorting is needed for plastic (sorting only according to the plastic type). The collection of the material is done with the use of an open truck equipped to empty the bins. Packaging waste including plastic collection points are very common near shopping centres, at civic amenity sites and in local neighbourhoods in a close distance to each other.

6.1.2 Sorting The sorting of plastic packaging waste as input for recycling methods is extremely important, from both a cost and quality point of view (European Plastic Recyclers, 2010).




Sorting of plastic mainly depends on the treatment procedures going to be followed. However, there are two main types of plastic packaging waste sorting which can be described as manual and automated sorting. In some cases where plastic regrind is produced both manual and automated sorting is used to ensure the highest level of quality control.

Manual Sorting

In Manual sorting experienced personnel visually identify and sort by hand plastic bottles and containers travelling over a conveyor belt system into polymer type and/or color. Manual sorting could be separated into two types – positive and negative sorting. Positive sorting means that targeted plastic type is removed from the rest plastic stream being carried over a conveyor. In contrast, negative sorting type removes unwanted plastic and contaminants from the conveyor. The positive sorting system is thought to produce more quality materials but is more time consuming, while negative sorting system is better to use when packaging waste has been pre-sorted (e.g. sorted at home). To improve efficiency of manual sorting ultraviolet (UV) light could be used, especially when separation of PET from PVC is needed (David J. Hurd, 2003). .

Automated Sorting

Automated sorting is implemented by using a detection system or combination of detection systems, which identify one or more properties of the plastic bottles or containers passing through over a conveyor and automatically sorts (e.g. with the use of air jets) these plastics into several categories, either by resin type, color or both (David J. Hurd, 2003).

Various techniques have been introduced to sort plastics automatically. Such techniques could be considered the X-ray Transmission, X-ray fluorescence, infrared and near infrared spectroscopy, electrostatics and flotation methods (WasteOnline, 2006).

More specifically most of these technologies employ some type of detection signal that can distinguish plastic packaging waste based on chemical or physical characteristics when that signal is identified and analysed by a sensor. Those signal detection systems can be categorized in the three types mentioned below (David J. Hurd, 2003):

o optical sorting systems

o systems based on “transmission technologies”

o surface scanning devices

6.1.3 Treatment Plastic can be treated in a variety of ways which include reuse of plastic packaging, two different types of recycling and energy recovery procedures.

Reuse

Reuse is considered any operation through which plastic packaging products that do not characterized as waste are used over again for the same function for which they were initially


produced (EuPR, 2010). There are plenty examples of reuse in EU such as (Association of Plastic Manufacturers et al., 2008):

o Soft drink plastic bottles are reused in deposit systems in a number of Member States,

o costumers reuse the carrier bag for a variety of needs, and

o plastics trays and crates used in supermarkets offer a clean, robust and cost-effective way of moving goods from producer to customer.

From an environmental point of view, reusing plastic is more favourable than recycling it as reuse uses less energy and fewer resources. Durable, multi-trip plastics packaging has become more common in recent years, replacing less resilient and single-trip options, causing waste reduction (WasteOnline, 2006).

Recycle

Recycling can be defined as any recovery operation through which plastic packaging waste materials are reformed into products, materials or substances for their initial function or other purposes (EuPR, 2010).

Plastic recycling is more complicated as it can be recycled with various ways such as mechanically, chemically and biologically.

Mechanical Recycling

Melting, shredding or granulation of packaging waste plastics are the processes followed in the mechanical recycling procedure of plastics. Once sorted, plastic is either moulded into a new shape after been melted down, or being shredded into flakes and then melted down and finally processed into granules, a procedure called re-granulating (WasteOnline, 2006).

In general, mechanical recycling refers to operations that aim to recover plastics waste via mechanical processes which can produce new plastics products, able of substituting virgin plastics. Only thermoplastic materials (for example polymeric materials that could be re-melted and re-processed into new plastic packaging via procedures like injection moulding or extrusion) are of interest in mechanical recycling (thermosets rejected). As a result, plastics’ packaging waste mechanical recycling is in general feasible only for uniform, single polymer streams or for distinct combinations of polymers that can be efficiently separated into the individual polymers. Pet bottles’ recycling procedures is a major example of mechanical recycling of post-consumer plastics waste and include (EuPR, 2010):

o Collection,

o Sorting,

o Grinding,

o Washing,

o Separating,

o Drying, and

o Processing into polyester fibres, sheets or containers.


Chemical (Feedstock) Recycling

Operations aiming in the chemical degradation into monomers or other basic chemicals of collected plastic packaging waste are what chemical recycling is all about. The produced monomers or the other basic chemicals could be reused in creating new polymers (new plastic), for production of other useful chemicals or as an alternative fuel (EuPR, 2010).

A variety of feedstock recycling procedures is at present being investigated. These consist of: pyrolysis, hydrogenation, gasification and thermal cracking. In comparison to mechanical recycling, feedstock recycling has a greater flexibility over mixture of collected plastic packaging waste and is more tolerant to impurities, even though it is very intensive and needs great quantities of used plastic (for example 50,000 tonnes per year) to be processed in order to be economically viable (WasteOnline, 2006).

More specifically, pyrolysis comprises heating plastics in the absence (or close to) of oxygen to analyse the long polymer chains into small molecules. A petroleum-like oil could be yielded under mild conditions from polyolefin. Moreover ethylene and propylene monomers can be yielded through special conditions. On the other hand some gasification methods yield syngas which is combinations of hydrogen and carbon monoxide (synthesis gas). With chemical (feedstock) recycling, plastics such as PET and nylon form starting materials (American Chemistry Council, 2010).

According to WasteOnline website (2006) carrier bags made from recycled rather than virgin polythene concluded that resulted in the following environmental benefits:

o reduction of energy consumption by two-thirds

o production of only a third of the sulphur dioxide and half of the nitrous oxide

o reduction of water usage by nearly 90%

o reduction of carbon dioxide generation by two-and-a-half times

o 1.8 tonnes of oil are saved for every tonne of recycled polythene produced.

In addition plastic recycling causes reduced amounts of solid waste send to landfill.

Recover

In antithesis to pyrolysis, an oxidative process that generates heat, carbon dioxide, and water is plastic combustion with energy recovery. Eventually, plastics offer an additional recovery option (Association of Plastic Manufacturers et al., 2008). Energy recovery refers to procedures that intend to use the released energy produced during the combustion of plastics waste. Heat and/or electricity can be produced from the released energy for domestic or industrial purposes (EuPR, 2010). In precision energy from plastic can be recovered in energy-from-waste incinerators where the heat of the plastic waste burnt at high temperatures is used for production of electricity (Dmitri Kopeliovich, 2009).

In the following Figure 6.1 Figure 7.1 is demonstrated the change of the growth in plastic recycling and energy recovery for 1995 - 2006 period from EU15+2 to EU 25+2.


Figure 6.1: Growth change from EU15+2 to EU 25+2 in Plastic Recycling and Energy Recovery (Association of Plastic Manufacturers et al., 2008)


6.2.1 Cyprus As mention in Action 3 plastic waste stream is collected together with other waste streams which all together form PMD waste stream. Plastics consist mainly from packaging made from PET, PE, HDPE. PMD collection and treatment procedure has been described in Chapter 2.2.1 above. It has to be mentioned that before plastic is send to be finally treated is sorted into its subcategories which in Cyprus for plastic are PET, PE and HDPE. Portions of wastes that could not be sorted are sent to landfill.

6.2.2 Malta Plastic waste streams include all kind of household wastes fabricated from plastic. Collection occurs through multiple ways such as door to door collection through the Recycle Tuesday’s initiative or Bring in Sites method.

6.2.3 Greece Packaging waste compliance schemes existing in Greece and Greek islands have been described in Chapter 1.2.3 as mentioned before. HE.R.Co’s compliance scheme collects plastic packaging waste mixed with other packaging waste in blue bins located in a variety of places (e.g. neighbourhoods). After collection packaging waste is sent to the sorting centres around the country as described in previous chapters.

Carrefour Marinopoulos’s, INFOQUEST’s, Sourotis’s, Atlantik’s and Alfa Alfa Energy’s collective bring in site system collects plastic packaging waste in selected points offering a mutual incentive to the consumers.


Last but not least, A.B Marinopoulos S.A’s private pay back packaging collection system and its remote collection center collect plastic packaging along with other packaging waste giving back a small amount of money which consumers can choose to offer it to a voluntary scheme.

6.2.4 France The packaging waste (including plastic) management schemes and the methods used in French mainland and in the selected French islands have been described in Chapter 1.2.4.

Plastic packaging waste stream can be collected together with other waste steams or separately; via bring in site network or door-to-door collection due to the 1,300 local authorities implementing collections systems and the wide variability of collection features been followed.

In Corsica a bring in site collection system is applied, collecting mixed packaging waste including plastic and as there is no sorting centre, collected quantities are gathered in the ports (in bulk) before being shipped to a sorting line on the mainland. Biguglia municipality is currently testing a door-to-door collection system, with discrete bags for lightweight including plastic. Two sorting lines are taking care of Corsica’s household packaging: one in La Seyne/Mer, and one in Martigues. Treatment of plastic packaging waste of Corsica is taking place in various places. Further information about treatment of paper packaging waste is shown in Table 6.3. Table 6.3: Recycling plants in mainland France for the treatment of materials from Corsica (Ochier Vincent, personal communication, 2009)

plastic

Location of recycling plant France, Italy, Spain

Type of recycling -

Distance travelled from sorting centre -

Type of transport ground, ship


Like in Corsica Guadeloupe and more precisely Saint Martin’s municipality collection of packaging is made through a bring-in site network. On the other hand, in the municipality of Saint Bartelemy cardboard and plastic packaging is incinerated to produce energy along with residual waste. Plastic sorting and treatment facility exists in Guadeloupe, but as there in no separate collection of plastic yet, the plant has not started to operate Treatment and sorting information for plastic in the municipality of Saint Martin’s in Guadeloupe examined is demonstrated in the Table 6.4. Table 6.4: Recycling Plants in Saint Martin, Guadeloupe (Gislais Pascal, personal communication, 2009)

Saint Martin plastic

Location of recycling plant Continental Guadeloupe

Type of recycling Granulation & export for PET,

recycling in grating for PE and PP

Distance travelled from sorting centre PET flakes to China



Type of packing 40’ baled

In Martinique bring in site mix collection system of packaging waste including plastic has been chosen from three groups of municipalities. While, CACEM group of municipalities has chosen a door-to-door collection system. Sorting is taking place on the island in Ducos before collected materials been exported in bales for further treatment. In the following Table 7.5 information about treatment plants that serve plastic packaging waste of Martinique are demonstrated. Table 6.5: Recycling plants for the treatment of Martinique’s packaging waste (Gislais Pascal, personal communication, 2009, Inddigo Consulting, 2006)

plastic

Location of recycling plant Guadeloupe

Type of recycling granulation for PET, recycling for PE and PP



Type of packing Baled in 40’

Bring-in site and door to door collection system for lightweight packaging waste including plastic is used in Reunion as well as in Martinique. There are three sorting centres operating on the island that perform manual sorting. As there is no local treatment for packaging waste after collection and sorting, packaging including plastic is shipped and recycled abroad in various locations as shown in Table 6.6 . Table 6.6: Recycling plants for the treatment of materials from Reunion (Gislais Pascal, personal communication, 2009, PÖYRY Energy Consulting, 2006, PÖYRY Energy Consulting, 2007)

plastic

Location of recycling plant India, Malaysia

Type of recycling Fibre for PET, granulation for HDPE

Distance travelled from sorting centre no information available

Type of transport ship Type of packing Baled in 40’


6.3 Cost/Revenue analysis

Cost analysis for plastic waste stream was carried out based on the “plastic system process tree” shown in Figure 6.2. The data collected for the participating member states (Table 6.7) shows that all Green Dot organizations from the participating member states apply to the specific process tree. Figure 6.2: System process diagram for recycling of Plastics



2. Transport



Plastic Packaging

Waste

Collection

Sorting Recycling Transport 2

Energy recovery/Export/ Landfill Transport to Bring

Bank

Curbside Collection




- Kerbside Collection No source separation

Mechanical and Manual Sorting - Export

Greece HERCCo


Sorting in various MRFs -Export









- local recycling - Export


-Manual sorting -Baling

- shipped to Guadeloupe Island (Martinique) -shipped to India and Malaysia (Reunion)

Table 6.7: Results of the data collection activity for Plastics


Table 6.8: Cost/ revenue Analysis for Plastic recycling in €/ton (based on Green Dot activity)

Cost category Cyprus Malta Greece Greece


Mainland (Syros) Mainland (Martinique) (Reunion) collection 255 125 59 70 129 200 100 Sorting

(including bailing) 160 15 71 130 114 216 100

Recycling n/a n/a n/a n/a 102 n/a n/a

Transport 3 3 6 50

18 100 67

Export 37 105 30 n/a Total Expenses 455 248 166 250 363 516 267

Revenues Selling of Waste 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 Net Expenses 377 170 88 172 285 438 189



Island France France Is-land

France Island

Mainland (Syros) Mainland (Martinique) (Reunion) Collection 56 50 36 28 36 39 37

Sorting (includ-ing bailing) 35 6 43 52 31 42 37

Recycling n/a n/a n/a n/a 28 n/a n/a Transport 1 1 4

20 5

19 25 Export 8 42 18 n/a

Total Expenses 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Revenues

Selling of Waste 17 31 47 31 21 15 29

6.4 Cost/ revenue analysis In the case of Plastic PPW management, there is an obvious higher net expense in islands in comparison to the mainland countries.


1. Collection costs are higher in the islands in contrast to the mainland (except in the case of Syros.

2. Sorting costs are lower in Cyprus and Malta because it involves mostly direct bailing of waste.




6.5 Identification of environmental impacts In this section an environmental impact analysis of the recycling of plastics is presented for the collection and transport, sorting and recycling activities.


The results of the environmental impact analysis of the collection and transport activities for plastics waste is presented in Table 6.10 Table 6.10: Atmospheric emissions from the collection and transport activities of plastics waste Kerbside collection


Declared production 14710.0 8797.0 295000.0 2113930.0 tn

Collection Rate 14.5 10.6 13.7 21.1 %

Collected Waste 642 280 12125 133812 tn

Distance per trip 177 0.005 212 80 Km/trip

Number of trips 268 117 5052 55755 trip/year

Fuel consumption per Year 18983 0.212 427864 1774545 L/year

Fuel consumption per Tonne 8.87 0.0002 10.59 3.98 L/tn per year

Carbon dioxide 23.47207 0.00060148 28.01259 10.52699

Kg/tn

Carbon Monoxide 0.06061 0.00000155 0.07233 0.02718

Particulate matter 0.01457 0.00000037 0.01738 0.00653

Nitrogen Oxides 0.16810 0.00000431 0.20062 0.07539

Nitrous Oxide 0.00116 0.00000003 0.00139 0.00052

Sulphur Dioxide 0.00448 0.00000011 0.00535 0.00201

Ammonia 0.00018 0.00000000 0.00021 0.00008




g/L Diesel Carbon Monoxide 6.832




Nitrous Oxide 0.131


Ammonia 0.020

(ecoinvent report N13) for a 16t lorry adjusted for stop & go driving (p66)

6.5.2 Sorting: Sorting is carried out in waste sorting facilities and includes separation of plastics from other pack-aging waste such as plastics and metal and removal of contaminants from the waste stream.

Table 6.12: Atmospheric emissions from plastics sorting activities


Collected Waste 2140 932 40415 446039 tn/yr

Total energy consumption 64200.0 27960.0 1212450.0 13381170.0 Kwh/year

Carbon dixide 48.1 17.4 835040.5 724.3

tn/year

Nitrous Oxide 0.01 0.05 206.59 0.00

Sulphur Dioxide 0.04 0.08 619.77 0.00

Table 6.13: Data used for environmental impact assessment Carbon dioxide 7.5E-04 6.2E-04 6.9E-01 5.4E-05 tn/Kwh Nitrous Oxide 1.9E-07 1.7E-06 1.7E-04 0.0E+00 tn/Kwh Sulphur Dioxide 5.6E-07 2.8E-06 5.1E-04 0.0E+00 tn/Kwh Energy Consumption** 30 30 30 30 Kwh/t



6.5.3 Treatment: In general, plastics intermediate processors receive plastic containers (primarily in baled form, but in some cases loose) that have been separated from other recyclable materials at MRFs, buy-back or drop-off centres, and then granulate them for sale as “dirty regrind” to reclaimers and end-users. In most cases, plastic intermediate processors take in loose plastic bottles and produce baled plastics for sale to plastics recycling centres, reclaimers or end-users. Most recycling centres are designed to separate plastics into their individual resin categories (if they accept bales of mixed plastic bottles), and then further separate each plastic resin type by color or other market specification parameters. The plastic packaging stream is a very complex stream with a great variety of plastics in the mixture, a fact that makes recycling difficult, expensive and less rewarding.


Due to lack of data regarding the composition of plastic types in each participating (in the project) country’s waste stream and detailed environmental impact data the environmental impact analysis of the plastic waste stream was not possible.


7 Cooling Equipment Cooling equipment is considered to be appliances like big refrigeration appliances, fridges, freezers and air-conditioners. In this Action treatment and sorting features of fridges are analyzed. Fridges are included in the first category of appliances of the WEEE Directive as large household appliances which are the biggest category being part of the WEEE stream with 43% (Life: Kypros, 2006). According to the latest data from Eurostat (2011) large household appliances waste stream participation rate in WEEE of each participating country in REPT is presented in the Table 8.1 below. Table 7.1: Participation Rate in WEEE of Large Household Appliances for REPT Participating Countries in 2008 (Eurostat, 2011)

Participating Countries in REPT Large Household Appliances participation rate in WEEE in 2006 (%)

Cyprus 71,5

Greece 66

France 52

Malta* - * Malta has no available data to provide regarding WEEE stream Cooling equipment management is based on the EU WEEE strategy, which could be summarised as:

• prevention or reduction of waste production and its harmfulness as first priority, • recovery of waste by means of recycling, re-use or reclamation or any other process with a

view to extracting secondary raw materials so as to reduce the disposal of waste, • improvement of the environmental performance of operators involved.

As it seems large household appliances including cooling equipment (fridges) stream is one of the most important in the EEE type of wastes. Cooling equipment participates with 36% in the large household appliances waste stream (UNU, 2007). Eventually, recycling rates of this stream are increasing steadily in the latest years. In 2008 approximately an average 80% recycling and reuse of large household appliances has been achieved in EU (Eurostat, 2011). Collection and recycling rates for the participating countries in REPT are demonstrated in Table 8.2.


Table 7.2: Collection and recycling of large household appliances WEEE in the participating countries in 2008 (Eurostat, 2011)

Collection of large household appliances (tones)

Recycling Rate (tones / %)

Cyprus 1 956 -

Malta* - -

Greece 34 457 28 592 / 81

France 173 570 135 085 / 82

EU 1 793 681 1 158 704 / 80

* Malta has no available data to provide regarding WEEE stream


7.1.1 Collection Collection methods of WEEE streams analysed in REPT (CRT and Cooling Equipment) excluding fluorescent lamps which are collected separately are collected in the same possible ways. There are five possible ways of collecting them which are summarized in Table 7.3.

More analytically kerbside collection can be held either in a periodic basis or after appointment Even though this collection method is the most convenient for the end users, operating costs can be higher than for other collection methods. Furthermore, theft of devices left for kerbside collection is a possibility. Operation of permanent drop-off site which is a year-round collection event has been found to be the most cost effective method (IAER, 2003).

Those drop-off sites can be placed in municipal areas with low cost, though this kind of collection method is not applicable for every community size. With the drop-off collection method when a certain quantity has been gathered transportation to a recycler should be held, thus regular check of the collected appliances is required. In the point-of-purchase collection method retailers play the role of the collection agency and can accept WEEE all year round or in specific days (depends on the retailer) when consumers purchase new EEE. In addition, equipment manufacturers and retailers (for example IBM, Dell, HP) have established ‘take-back’ collection systems for collecting used electronic products from consumers. For rural areas the most effective collection method are special drop-off events (USEPA, 2000).

Suitable collection sites can be appointed by taking into account the geographic location, the proximity, the accessibility and the population distribution. In contrast, electronic retail stores or large parking places can be used as collection sites for special drop-off events (H-Y. Kang and J. M. Schoenung, 2005).


In the recycling procedure of WEEE an important role plays transportation. Local authorities, private recycles or a compliance scheme provide transportation in the case of kerbside collection. When permanent collection in drop-off sites or special drop-off events are in operation, consumers need to bring their WEEE to the collection site and then the transportation of the accumulated WEEE to the processing facility is the responsibility of the recycler or the local authority (H-Y. Kang and J. M. Schoenung, 2005).

In drop-off sites exists a container for the storage of the collected WEEE which is transferred to be emptied in the primary treatment station whenever it is full. The stowage of the container is approximately 3 tonnes (Greece-personal contact, 2010). Eventually the transfer is held with big track able to peak such a container.


Table 7.3: Summary of collection options and transportation responsibilities (H-Y. Kang and J. M. Schoenung, 2005)


7.1.2 Pre-treatment This process follows collection procedure and comprises the dismantling and separation of cooling equipment (fridge) and mainly, regarding fridges, the degassing process.

In maximum of material recycling type the pre-treatment procedure includes the following (Laner and Rechberger, 2007):

• A degassing unit extracts coolant and oil. More precisely, the cooling circuit is pierced at the lowest point and compressed gas cylinders are used to store the extracted refrigerant and oil. Then the collected mixture is sent for further treatment.

• Components like compressor, plate glass, cables and possibly mercury switches and capacitors are removed by manually from the cooling appliance.

It is tangible that mechanical separation of components can be either automated or manual (Brett H. Robinson, 2009). Components may be separated for metallurgical processing or reuse (He et al., 2006).

In this phase (pre-treatment) gas emission possibility exist as mentioned by English Environmental Agency (2002). For a fridge treated in a proprietary degassing unit an amount of coolant loss of 1.17g per unit from the coolant and 0.14g of coolant in the oil can be achieved. Under any circumstances though, the losses should not exceed the range of 1.5-3.5g per unit.

From now on most of the waste fridges should include HFC-134a coolant, which started to be used in since the mid-1990s and changed in 1997 to isobutene (Laner and Rechberger, 2007). HFC-134a was used as a coolant which has a lifetime of 15.6 years and a GWP=1300 while ODP is approximately zero (Greenpeace, 2002).

7.1.3 Treatment In a second phase the appliance is shredded under carefully controlled conditions. This enables the recovery and recycling of the steel, copper, aluminium and plastic components (Grundon, 2007). Regarding the polyurethane (PUR) foam, an air separator and then further ground are used to separate its flakes. Gas is heated up in order maximum extraction of the remaining blowing agent to be achieved. After blowing agent substances captured and collected through regenerative filter systems (activated charcoal filters) and condensers, are bottled into containers and transferred to the cracking reactor, where they are cracked into HCl, HF and residuals. The PUR flour produced by the process is bagged and sent to be recycled as an adhesive agent. Concerning the collected coolant gasses from pre-treatment, this mixture is separated in a distillation facility which implements different filter systems. Finally, the distillation residual is incinerated, the oil is recycled and the coolant gasses are taken to a reactor cracking facility (Lanner and Rechberger, 2007).

It has to be mentioned that approximately 5g of blowing agent substances could be lost from the extraction process be processing less than 100 fridges in an hour (EEA, 2002). Waste fridges will probably include HFC-245fa as a blowing agent from now on and for the next few years as it has been replaced with cyclopentane since 1997. HFC-245fa has a GWP= 1020 and zero ODP (EPA, 2010).


In the following Figure 8.1 the above mentioned pre-treatment and treatment procedure is demonstrated.

Figure 7.1: Basic model of the Maximum of Material recycling type (CFC Appliance) (source: Lanner and Rechberger, 2007)


7.2.1 Cyprus

In Cyprus, cooling equipment waste stream consist of big refrigeration appliances, air conditioning equipment, fridges, all kind of freezers, every other type of equipment used for cooling, freezing or storing food.

All the selected WEEE streams (cooling equipment, CRT screens and fluorescent lamps) as mentioned in Action 3, are going to be collected from various sources including:


1. Collection from retail shops, as the shops have the one to one take back responsibility for old equipment,

2. Collection of old equipment from offices,

3. Seasonal campaigns with the local authorities for the collection of WEEE from households.

In the future, the system will utilise a network of Green Points for the selection of various streams of waste. This network will be developed by the government and will consist of about 150 such Green Points around the island.

Central sorting and storage points will be used for all the collected material from all the relevant sources to be sorted and stored. Two such points will be developed at strategic locations. The first point has already started operating in Nicosia District in the Industrial area of Dali.

Cooling equipment is expected to be pre-treated on the island and the final secondary raw materials will be exported in other countries. At the beginning, the treatment will be more manual but it will eventually be more automated as the collected quantities grow and justify further investments.

Due to the presence of chlorofluorocarbons or hydro-fluorocarbons (CFCs, HFCs) in their systems this stream of appliances apposes particular difficulties in treatment procedure. In Cyprus a mobile unit for the management of cooling equipment is intended to be used. The actual plan is to have a local storage facility where safe parts will be removed (1st step treatment) and the fridges will be stored. The mobile unit will be visiting the island when at least 10,000 refrigerators are stored for treatment.

7.2.2 Malta As mentioned in Action 3, Malta’s WEEE system is not operational (at this time that the report is being written) is not operational and it is in the design phase. WEEE (including cooling equipment, CRT screens and fluorescent lamps) from private households is intended to be collected by:

• modified kerb side collection of bulky waste by local councils,

• the new Civic Amenity Sites and

• taking back WEEE by retailers (when selling a new product).

Sorting will be carried out on-site at facilities where some part of scrap metal is processed to avoid landfilling (Malta Ministry for Resources and Rural Affairs, 2009). After that, leftovers are sent abroad for further treatment.

7.2.3 Greece In Greece responsible for the operation and the alternative management of WEEE including the selected waste streams (cooling equipment, CRT screens and fluorescent lamps) is the collective system named Appliances Recycling S.A. This system specialises in management of WEEE which invoke activities such as collection, transport, temporary storage, reuse and treatment (recycling and recovery of energy) or/and their components and their subassemblies (including their


consumables) so that after their reuse or treatment, they are streamed back into the market (Appliances Recycling S.A., 2009). Appliances Recycling S.A. is also responsible for the management of WEEE in a number of Greek islands.

Collection of the selected waste streams could be realized through take back system when producers take back old WEEE while a new EEE is bought from a costumer. Users can also carry the WEEE at of the municipal collection points contracted (like schools, centres of civil service etc.) Moreover, WEEE can be transferred to collaborating retail shops of electric and electronic appliances, as well as at one of the collaborating super markets. The same procedure for collection stands for the selected waste streams of WEEE.

Collection in the Greek islands follows the same patterns as mainland though transfer to sorting and then treatment centres involves shipping. For the collection of WEEE in the Greek islands the following are used:

• Hagen type containers - 38m3,

• 240 litre bins in municipal collection points (for the collection of small size appliances),

• Bins especially used for the collection of fluorescent lamps.

The vehicles used for the transfer of WEEE in islands are three axis trailers, trucks for the transfer of containers and platform trucks. Regarding the transfer of WEEE from an island to another island or mainland for sorting and treatment ships are used.

The use of autonomic units for the collection sorting and depollution was suggested regarding WEEE treatment improvement on islands. The proposed units are expected to serve the following operations:

• Collection of WEEE at their place of production,

• Transfer of WEEE at the units,

• Reception, weighting and discharge of mixed WEEE,

• Sorting of WEEE in the ten defined categories according to legislation,

• Disassembly - Depollution of WEEE,

• Packing of sorted materials,

• Transfer of the sorted materials (packs) to steel factories or car shredders for mechanical treatment and recovery of materials,

• Management of waste that result from the cleaning (depollution) process,

• Utilisation of possible materials that result from the procedure,

• Transfer of the remaining materials (those which cannot be utilised) in landfills,

• Specific categories of WEEE (egg. fridges) will be sent in relevant facilities for their treatment.

The management process of WEEE in Greece is described in the following Figure 8.2.


Figure 7.2: WEEE management process in Greece (Appliances Recycling S.A., 2011)


7.2.4 France Rresponsible for the management of WEEE in France are compliance schemes which are supported financially by the EEE producers. Regarding, Cooling Equipment, the schemes which deal with them are the Ecologic, Eco-systemes and ERP France. In 2006, all compliance schemes (including Recyclum for lamps) jointly created “OCAD3E” which is an interface with the municipalities.

For the collection and sorting of WEEE the consumer has three possibilities in France: • Brings the WEEE to a public waste yard, • Brings the WEEE to the distributor if buying a new item, • Brings the WEEE to a ¨charity structure¨ in order to be repaired and sold again.

WEEE is then collected by the contractors of the compliance schemes. Contrary to packaging, compliance schemes have to finance all costs for collection and treatment, and contract directly with operators. Municipalities having a public collection in waste yards get some subsidies from OCAD3E. All quantities collected are then gathered on platforms before being sent for treatment.

In French islands, compliance schemes are not in competition regarding WEEE including cooling equipment. Thus, Ecologic is responsible for the management in Guadeloupe and Eco-systèmes is responsible for the management in Reunion and Martinique. The case of Corsica is different as it is an island part of the mainland territory, so both Ecologic and Eco-systèmes are operating on the island.

Household WEEE collection has started in November 2006 in the mainland (including Corsica) and in November 2007 in the overseas territories (Guadeloupe, Martinique, Reunion). So 2008 was the first whole year of operation of the system for most of the islands. As the distributors are obliged by law to take back WEEE when a new one is bought, they account until now for the main source of WEEE. However, as more and more municipalities are joining the system the collection is expected to evolve quickly in the coming years.

It is considered that 100% of the population in islands have access to a collection system through distributors. On the other hand as the participation of municipalities is voluntary, not all of them have set up public collection. Though, collection WEEE collection points exist in the four islands under study and also a number of storage platforms.

Regarding Cooling Appliances in Corsica, all WEEE categories including them are transferred by ship to recycling plants in the mainland. The situation in the rest three islands (Guadeloupe, Martinique and Reunion) where as well as Corsica send abroad for treatment the collected cooling appliances is described in the following tables (Table 7.4, Table 7.5 and Table 7.6). Table 7.4: Information about cooling appliances in Guadeloupe (Perrier R.L., personal communication 9/6/09)

GUADELOUPE Large cooling appliances Location of recycling plant France Distance travelled from sorting centre 6 700km Type of transport ship Type of packing Containers 40’


Table 7.5: Information about cooling appliances produced in Martinique (Eco-systemes, 2009a) MARTINIQUE Large cooling appliances Location of recycling plant France Distance travelled from sorting centre 6 800km Type of transport ship Type of packing Containers 40’

Table 7.6: Information about cooling appliances produced in Reunion (Eco-systemes, 2009a)

REUNION Large cooling appliances Location of recycling plant France (95) Distance travelled from sorting centre 10 000km Type of transport ship Type of packing Containers 40’

7.3 Cost analysis Cost analysis for cooling equipment waste stream was carried out based on the “cooling equipment system process tree” shown in Figure 7.3. The data collected for the participating member states are shown in Table 7.7. Figure 7.3: System process diagram for recycling of cooling equipment

The cost of recycling depends on the following main processes:



3. The pre-treatment process


Cooling Equipment

Collection Sorting/ Storage

Transport 1

Pre-Treatment

Recycling

Export


Country Collection Sorting Pre-treatment Treatment

Cyprus - Collection from shops - Bring in Site collection

Sorting of equipment at sorting centres

Cooling equipment i.e. fridges undergo a first pre-treatment step which involves the removal of all hazardous or environmentally dangerous substances i.e. fridges

-Export

Greece Mainland - Collection from shops - Bring in Site collection

Sorting in various MRFs locally Dismantling and recycling -Export

Island -Collection and storage -1st level treatment

-Sorted locally -no sorting but storing until export

- first pre-treatment step or no pre-treatment -Shipped to mainland

Malta - Collection from shops - Bring in Site collection


Cooling equipment i.e. fridges undergo a first pre-treatment step which involves the removal of all hazardous or environmentally dangerous substances i.e. fridges

-Export

France Mainland - Collection from shops - Bring in Site collection

Sorting in various MRFs locally Dismantling and recycling -Export


-Sorted locally -no sorting but storing until export


Table 7.7: Results of the data collection activity for cooling equipment


Table 7.8: Cost Analysis for Cooling Equipment recycling Cyprus Greece Greece

Island France France Island France Island France

Island

Mainland (2008) Mitilini (2008)

Mainland (2008)

(Guadeloupe) (2008)

(Martinique) (2008)

(Reunion) (2008)

Tns collected 100 22154.9

No Data

No Data

No

Costs (€/ton)

collection 30 59

Sorting 27 41

Transport 1 0 12

Pre-treatment 400

Recycling 0 65

Transport 2 - 0

Export 0

Total Expenses 457 177

Revenues - -

Selling of Waste - -

Net Expenses

*all figures for Cyprus were provided by Green Dot Cyprus for the year 2008

7.4 Identification of environmental impacts

7.4.1 Collection & Transport: Unlike the PPW where the most popular collection method is the Kerbside collection of waste, cool-ing equipment is mainly collected through bring-in sites or electric goods retail shops take back sys-tems. This systems involve the public taking (usually with light duty vehicles) the waste cooling equipment i.e. fridge, air-condition, freezer to the collection site where they are stored in large Ha-gen Type Containers (capacity ¬38 m3). When the containers are full they are taken to a storing facility or a pre-treatment station where there treatment begins. In order to assess the environmen-tal impacts (emissions) for this waste stream it has to be taken into consideration that two vehicle types are used. These two transportation steps, and their associated different vehicle loading fac-


tors, will therefore have different environmental impacts per km driven. In this assessment estima-tions are made only for a bring-in site collection system due to data availability.

The analysis does not include Malta since it had not yet implemented the WEEE collective systems at the time.

Table 7.9: Atmospheric emissions from the collection and transport activities of cooling equipment Private car travel


Collected waste 3 - 16500 78600 tn

Distance per trip 8.0 - 15.0 10.0 Km/trip



Fuel consumption per Ton 10 -

10 6 L/tn per year

Carbon dioxide 11.65333 - 21.85000 14.56667

Kg/tn

Nitrous Oxide 0.00051 - 0.00095 0.00063

Sulphur Dioxide 0.00253 - 0.00475 0.00317

Ammonia 0.00005 - 0.00010 0.00006 Transport to storage or recy-cling centers Cyprus Malta Greece France


Distance per trip 25.0 -

200.0 300.0 Km/trip

Number of trips 0.4 - 0.4 0.4 trip/year

Fuel consumption per Year 1.6 - 66000.0 471600.0 L/year



Carbon dioxide 1.6538 - 10.5840 15.8760

Kg/tn

Carbon Monoxide 0.0273 - 0.0273 0.0273


Nitrogen Oxides 0.0758 - 0.0758 0.0758

Nitrous Oxide 0.0005 - 0.0005 0.0005

Sulphur Dioxide 0.0020 - 0.0020 0.0020

Ammonia 0.0001 - 0.0001 0.0001





g/L Petrol

Nitrous Oxide 0.10


Ammonia 0.01

(Ecoinvent report N13) for a 1.4-2.0 L vehicle


8 CRT Screens

CRT screens are considered to be old TV screens, PC screens and of other usage screens. In this Action treatment and sorting features of CRT screens are analyzed. CRT screens are included in the fourth category of appliances of the WEEE Directive as consumer equipment which are the third in scale category being part of the WEEE stream with 8% (Life: Kypros, 2006). According to the latest data from Eurostat (2011) consumer equipment waste stream participation rate in WEEE of each participating country in REPT is presented in the Table 8.1 below. Table 8.1: Participation Rate in WEEE of Consumer Equipment for REPT Participating Countries in 2008 (Eurostat, 2011)

Participating Countries in REPT Consume equipment participation rate in WEEE in 2008 (%)

Cyprus 5

Greece 9

France 11,5

Malta* - * Malta has no available data to provide regarding WEEE stream Waste CRT screens management, as waste cooling equipment is based on the EU WEEE strategy, which could be summarised as:


view to extracting secondary raw materials so as to reduce the disposal of waste, • Improvement of the environmental performance of operators involved.

As it seems consumer equipment including CRT screens stream is an important EEE type of wastes. CRT Screens participates with 63% in the consumer equipment waste stream (UNU, 2007). Collection and recycling rates of this waste stream is increasing steadily the latest years along with other WEEE streams. In 2008 approximately an average 78% recycling and reuse of consumer equipment has been achieved in EU (Eurostat, 2011). Collection and recycling rates for the participating countries in REPT are demonstrated in Table 8.2.


Table 8.2: Collection and recycling of consumer equipment WEEE in the participating countries in 2008 (Eurostat, 2011)

Collection of consumer equipment (tones)


Cyprus* 3 -

Malta* * - -

Greece 4 796 3 592 / 82

France 55 785 45 531 / 85

EU 427 946 336 321 / 78

*Cyprus does not recycle CRT screens but exports the whole of the collected material

** Malta has no available data to provide regarding WEEE stream


8.1.1 Collection Collection methods of CRT Screens follow exactly the same patterns as those described for cooling equipment in Chapter 8.1.1 and especially in Table 8.3.

8.1.2 Treatment In order to better understand the pre-treatment and treatment procedure needed for the management of waste CRT Screens, its components should be known. The components of a typical CRT monitor are described in the Figure 9.1 below.

Figure 8.1: Components of a computer monitor (Macauley et al., 2001)


Eventually, after collection of CRT Screens there is a pre-treatment phase, where the dismantling of a monitor is held and it is separated to its components, so as the CRT Screen to be rather put apart. The procedure is described in the following Figure 9.2.

Figure 8.2: Simplified schematic of the process steps at a materials recovery facility (MRF) (Kang and Schoenung, 2005)

After, sorting all the plastic, metallic and other kind of parts of the monitor which are send for recycling, CRT Screen is further separated to its components. The CRT screen consists of the parts demonstrated in the following Figure 9.3.


Figure 8.3: Schematic view of the CRT components, showing the non-glass and glass parts (Me΄ar, et al., 2006)

CRT Screens can contain between 15 and 90 pounds of glass. Among other elements, CRT glass includes mainly lead in order to protect the user from x-rays generated in CRT with its operation. Furthermore, CRT glass is comprised of lead oxide (PbO), which in some cases reaches approximately 25%. Consequently, disposal of CRT screens in trash or municipal landfills should be avoided, due to the high lead content (Materials for the Future Foundation, 2001).

Subsequently, recycling is the next step after collection of CRT screens. Thereby, after dismantling and parts separation CRTs are sent to CRT recyclers. Recyclers have two recycling options, either glass-to-glass or glass-to-lead recycling. A schematic description of CRT recycling can be shown in the Figure 9.4 below.


Figure 8.4: Process flow diagram for recycling of CRTs (Kang and Schoenung, 2005)

8.1.3 CRT Recycling

Glass-to-glass recycling

In this kind of CRT recycling CRTs are broken, crushed, and turned into small pieces. After the separation from the other materials, the glass particles (cullet) is washed (to take away the phosphor coatings and any lasting dirt particles stick to the glass) and used to manufacture new CRT glass as feedstock (California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2001). As a result, glass-to-glass recycling is considered a closed loop recycling process (Kang and Schoenung, 2005).

Glass-to-glass recycling has several benefits in which are included the facts that (Materials for the Future Foundation, 2001):

♦ removes lead from the municipal waste stream,

♦ reduces and even avoids the environmental impacts associated with mining and processing raw lead from ore by providing recycled lead (in the form of CRT glass) for CRT glass manufacturing.

Moreover, except from the economic benefits (lower cost for CRT glass construction and higher value for recycler), the quality of the output glass can be improved improve and emissions can be reduced, since recycled glass already has high purity (Kang and Schoenung, 2005).


Due to the fact that crushed CRT glass (as a whole) includes some risks (contamination of the contents of an entire glass furnace which can lead to changes in glass properties) in construction of new CRT glass, other way of glass - to - glass recycling can be used. Such a way is the separation of the panel glass from the funnel glass, something that allows the panel glass to remain intact, and thus, identifiable (Kang and Schoenung, 2005).

Glass-to-lead recycling

In this recycling process, CRT glass smelting it used to separate and recover metallic lead (Pb) and copper (Cu) from it. In general CRTs include 0.5–5 kg of lead (in the glass), and 1–2.3 kg of copper (in the yoke). After separation process, recovered CRT glass goes to the lead smelter, where it behaves as a fluxing agent throughout the smelting process (Kang and Schoenung, 2005).

Due to the fact that major CRT manufacturers (for example in USA Thompson Electronics) do not make CRT glass anymore, lead smelting methods are preferred for the recycling of CRT glass (Materials for the Future Foundation, 2001).

What is more, glass-to-lead recycling is automated in comparison with glass-to-glass recycling and is more cost effective. Due to its automated nature and the emission control system that includes, glass-to-lead recycling process provides safe working conditions to workers as they are protected from lead dust. On the other hand, although glass-to-lead recycling process has a high overall throughput, it reduces the value of high quality glass (Kang and Schoenung, 2005).


8.2.1 Cyprus In Cyprus, the authorized WEEE management scheme does not include Screens and TV sets within consumer equipment category, having a separate category only for them (WEEE Electrocyclosis, 2011). Though, as it was mentioned in Chapter 8.2.1, all selected WEEE streams (cooling equipment, CRT screens and fluorescent lamps) as previously mentioned in Action 3, are going to be collected from various sources (Chapter 8.2.1). In Addition, the system will utilise a network of Green Points for the selection of various streams of waste as mentioned in Chapter 8.2.1. Sorting and storage for Screens and TV sets is going to be the same as for cooling equipment (Chapter 8.2.1).

As mentioned in Action 3 it is expected that large quantities of CRT screens will be collected in Cyprus the first years of operation of the compliance scheme because they are now considered old and will be replaced with the newer and more modern types of screens such as Plasma, LCD or other types.

Regarding treatment, it is currently expected that this type equipment will be exported in licensed facilities abroad, in order to avoid the complications of a small scale treatment of complicated


equipment on the island. Possibility of partial disassembling of screens in Cyprus will be looked into by the compliance scheme with the growth of the quantities in the future.

8.2.2 Malta In Malta it has started to operate a WEEE management compliance scheme named WEEE Recycle. Though, no official results of its operation have been demonstrated till now. As mentioned in Chapter 8.2.2 and previously in Action 3, in Malta collection of WEEE (including cooling equipment, CRT screens and fluorescent lamps) from private households is held by:

• modified kerb side collection of bulky waste by local councils,

• the new Civic Amenity Sites and

• taking back WEEE by retailers (when selling a new product).

Sorting and treatment of CRT screens in Malta follows the same patterns as described in Chapter 8.2.2 for cooling equipment.

8.2.3 Greece In Greece responsible for the management of WEEE including CRT screens is Appliances Recycling S.A. For the management (collection, sorting and treatment) of waste CRT Screens the same method as described in Chapter 8.2.3 for cooling appliances is followed.

8.2.4 France Management of waste CRT screens in French mainland and islands follows the same methods as cooling appliances waste, which was mentioned in Chapter 8.2.4 and previously described in Action 3 and Action 4.

Regarding CRT Screens in Corsica, all WEEE categories including them are transferred by ship to recycling plants in the mainland. In Guadeloupe and Martinique, as well as in Corsica, collected CRT screens are sent abroad for treatment (Table 8.3 and Table 8.4). On the other hand, in Reunion, treatment of the collected CRT Screens is held on the island (Table 8.5). Table 8.3: Information about cooling appliances in Guadeloupe (Perrier R.L., personal communication 9/6/09)

GUADELOUPE Screens Location of recycling plant France Distance travelled from sorting centre 6 700km Type of transport ship Type of packing Containers 40’


Table 8.4: Information about cooling appliances produced in Martinique (Eco-systemes, 2009a)

MARTINIQUE Screens Location of recycling plant France Distance travelled from sorting centre 6 800km Type of transport ship Type of packing Containers 40’

Table 8.5: Information about cooling appliances produced in Reunion (Eco-systemes, 2009a)

REUNION Screens Location of recycling plant local Distance travelled from sorting centre Type of transport ground Type of packing

8.3 Cost analysis Cost analysis for CRT waste stream was carried out based on the “CRT screens system process tree” shown in Figure 8.5. The data collected for the participating member states are shown in Table 8.6. Figure 8.5: System process diagram for recycling of cooling equipment






CRT Screens Collection Sorting/ Storage

Transport 1

Pre-Treatment

Recycling

Export


Country Collection Sorting Pre-treatment Treatment



CRT screens undergo a first pre-treatment step which involves the removal of all hazardous or environmentally dangerous substances i.e. glass

-Export


Sorting in various MRFs locally

Dismantling and recycling -Export

Island -Collection and storage

-Sorted locally -no sorting but storage until export



Sorting of screens at sorting centres

CRT screens undergo a first pre-treatment step which involves the removal of all hazardous or environmentally dangerous substances i.e. glass

-Export


Sorting in various MRFs locally

Dismantling and recycling -Export


-Sorted locally -no sorting but storage until export


Table 8.6: Results of the data collection activity for CRT Screen


Table 8.7: Cost Analysis for CRT Screens recycling

Cyprus

Greece Greece Island France

France Island France Island France Island


Mainland (2008)

(Guadeloupe) (2008)

(Martinique) (2008)

(Reunion) (2008)

Tns collected 178 3331.06

No data

No data

No data

Costs (€/ton) collection 30 135

Sorting /pretreatment 27 93 Transport 1 0 28 Recycling 0 149 Transport 2

220 0

Export 0 Total Expenses 277 405 Revenues Selling of Waste

Net Expenses

*all figures for Cyprus were provided by Green Dot Cyprus for the year 2009 Cost/ revenue analysis


8.4.1 Collection & Transport: Similar to the Cooling equipment, CRT screens are mainly collected through bring-in sites or elec-tric goods retail shops take back systems. These systems involve the public taking (usually with light duty vehicles) the waste to the collection site where they are stored in large containers. When the containers are full they are taken to a storing facility or a pre-treatment station where there treatment begins. In order to assess the environmental impacts (emissions) for this waste stream it has to be taken into consideration that two vehicle types are used. These two transportation steps, and their associated different vehicle loading factors, will therefore have different environmental impacts per km driven. In this assessment estimations are made only for a bring-in site collection system due to data availability.

The analysis does not include Malta since it had not yet implemented the WEEE collective system at the time.


Table 8.8: Atmospheric emissions from the collection and transport activities of CRT screens Private car travel







22 15 L/tn per year

Carbon dioxide 26.89231 - 50.42308 33.61538

Kg/tn

Nitrous Oxide 0.00117 - 0.00219 0.00146

Sulphur Dioxide 0.00585 - 0.01096 0.00731




200.0 300.0 Km/trip





Carbon dioxide 1.6538 - 10.5840 15.8760

Kg/tn

Carbon Monoxide 0.0273 - 0.0273 0.0273


Nitrogen Oxides 0.0758 - 0.0758 0.0758

Nitrous Oxide 0.0005 - 0.0005 0.0005

Sulphur Dioxide 0.0020 - 0.0020 0.0020

Ammonia 0.0001 - 0.0001 0.0001





g/L Petrol

Nitrous Oxide 0.10


Ammonia 0.01


Fuel consumption and atmospheric emissions for the transportation of collected waste to the

8.4.2 Recycling: The recycling of CRT screens is a complicated task since dangerous substances such as lead are present in the screens. In Table 8.11 that follows the outputs from the recycling of CRT monitors in the participating member states.


CRT screens collected 3 - 4796 55785 tn

Material output (per unit mass)%

Material re-covered %

Glass 44 90 1.188 - 1899.22 22090.9 tn

Plastic 23 95 0.6555 - 1047.93 12189 tn

steel 18 95 0.513 - 820.116 9539.24 tn

Copper 5 90 0.135 - 215.82 2510.33 tn

Lead 4 85 0.102 - 163.064 1896.69 tn

Iron 3 95 0.0855 - 136.686 1589.87 tn

Aluminium 2 90 0.054 - 86.328 1004.13 tn

Other 1 100 0.03 - 47.96 557.85 tn

Source: (Recycler’s World 2008)

Based on the presented material output the following table presents the estimated revenue from the selling of the recycled material.

Material Resale value (2008) Cyprus Malta Greece France

Glass 0.01 11.88 0 18992.16 220909

Plastic 0.2 131.1

209585.2 2437805

steel 0.21 107.73

172224.4 2003239


Copper 1.16 156.6

250351.2 2911977

Lead 2.48 252.96

404398.7 4703791

Iron 0.21 17.955

28704.06 333873

Aluminium 1.73 93.42

149347.4 1737145

Other -0.9 -27

-43164 -502065 in $ per tn of material

8.5 Identification of environmental impacts ‘A major source of hazardous waste in computer and television screens is cathode ray tubes (CRTs). CRTs contain lead and barium, and older CRTs contain arsenic. The CRT contains an electron gun that shoots electrons at high speeds to produce color images on television and computer screens. The acceleration of electrons requires high voltages to accelerate the electrons, and these voltages must be insulated from the external surfaces. The decelerating electrons also produce x-rays, so the casing must absorb these x-rays. Lead is used in the envelope encasing this process, as well as in the panel glass screen. Flat panel monitors and televisions do not use CRTs and thus do not contribute lead to the waste stream; however, these products do contain significant levels of mercury’(Townsend, et al., 1999). Monitors, and the presence of the leaded glass found in cathode ray tubes (CRTs), present a spe-cific challenge to recyclers because the glass is considered hazardous waste. The lead content of the leaded glass varies by manufacturer and by component, and this influences the future applica-tions of the recycled glass. Leaded glass is currently reused in a variety of ways: as a fluxing agent for lead smelting, as a sandblasting medium, and in the manufacture of CRT glass. The most prom-ising future markets for this glass may include the production of decorative tile and the manufacture of x-ray shielding products (Economics of PC Recycling Jane E. Boon, Jacqueline A. Isaacs, and Surendra M. Gupta*)

8.5.1 Impact on human health In addition, there is uncertainty about the intensity of the impact of chemicals in e-waste on human health. Toxicology is not an exact science, and there is rarely universal agreement on how a given chemical substance affects human physiology. This disagreement is compounded by the fact that hazard identification tests are often conducted using mice and rats, and then extrapolated to identify human carcinogens and toxins. The physical differences between rodents and humans make it difficult to establish acceptable levels of human exposure based solely on these animal studies. Sometimes limited epidemiological case studies do exist, yet these studies usually provide only limited amounts of additional data. After the toxins and their effects are described, some of the uncertainties related to them are also discussed.

8.5.2 Toxic Chemicals Present in E-waste: Lead Lead is one of the most abundant toxic by-products of e-waste and has many well-documented detrimental human health effects. Exposure to lead can occur from contaminated drinking water and often causes damage to the brain and nervous system. Lead poisoning has the greatest health


effect on children, and can cause slowed growth, hearing problems, and behaviour and learning problems. In adults, lead can cause reproductive problems, high blood pressure, and memory and concentration problems. The Environmental effects of lead are just as detrimental. Organisms exposed to lead have a lower chance of reproduction because of behavioural changes or physical disorders from the exposure.

The toxic properties of lead are well-studied, and there is little controversy associated with the toxicity of this element. It is classified as a probable human carcinogen, which means that there is no safe level of exposure below which negative health consequences may not occur. Lead is one of the most studied of the chemicals in e-waste because of the frequency of exposure and the severe negative health effects in children. (How Lead Affects the Way We Live & Breathe. Environmental Protection Agency [cited June, 19 2006, Available from: http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/lead/index.html.)


9 Fluorescent Lamps Fluorescent Lamps are energy-saving light bulbs, which for the same level of light intensity use far less energy than traditional light bulbs and last longer. This kind of lamps, are made of a glass tube filled with a low pressure mixture of gases, particularly noble gases and mercury. Fluorescent material, usually a compound containing phosphorous are used to coat the tube on the inside. Then when the current is switched on, the interaction of electrons with the gases and then with the coating on the inside of the tube, emits visible light through the surface of the lamp (Green Facts, 2011).

In this Action treatment and sorting features of fluorescent lamps are analyzed. Fluorescent lamps are included in the fifth category of the WEEE Directive as lighting equipment which is one of the smallest categories in scale being part of the WEEE stream covering 1% of the total (Life: Kypros, 2006). According to the latest data from Eurostat (2011) lighting equipment waste stream participation rate in WEEE of each participating country in REPT is presented in the Table 9.1 below. Table 9.1: Participation Rate in WEEE of Lighting Equipment for REPT Participating Countries in 2008 (Eurostat, 2011)

Participating Countries in REPT Lighting equipment participation rate in WEEE in 2008 (%)

Cyprus 3,5

Greece 4,3

France 2,5

Malta* - * Malta has no available data to provide regarding WEEE stream EU WEEE strategy stands for the management of the waste fluorescent lamps as well and can be summarized as previously mentioned (Chapter 9) to the following:


view to extracting secondary raw materials so as to reduce the disposal of waste, • Improvement of the environmental performance of operators involved.

As it seems lighting equipment including fluorescent lamps stream is an important EEE type of wastes. Fluorescent lamps participate with 27% in the lighting equipment waste stream (ELC, 2010). Along with other WEEE streams, collection and recycling rates of this waste stream is increasing steadily the latest years. In 2008, approximately an average 77% recycling and reuse of lighting equipment has been achieved in EU (Eurostat, 2011). Collection and recycling rates for the participating countries in REPT are demonstrated in Table 10.2.


Table9.2: Collection and recycling of lighting equipment WEEE in the participating countries in 2008 (Eurostat, 2011)

Collection of lighting equipment (tones)


Cyprus 3 -

Malta* - -

Greece 93 89 / 89

France 3 853 3 463 / 91

EU 74 788 46 222 / 77

* Malta has no available data to provide regarding WEEE stream


9.1.1 Collection Collection methods of Fluorescent lamps are exactly the same as those described for cooling equipment in Chapter 8.1.1 and especially in Table 8.3.

Though, due to the fact that fluorescent lamps are easily breakable during storage and transportation, simple protection measures should be taken. Such a measure is that when lamps are replaced, the cardboard boxes that contained the replacement lamps should be used for the used lamps to be packed. (EHSO, 2011)

9.1.2 Treatment In order to better understand the procedures needed for the treatment of waste fluorescent lamp, its components should be identified. The components of a typical fluorescent lamp are described in the Figure 10.1 below.


Figure9.1: Components of a typical fluorescent lamp (Apisitpuvakul et al., 2008)

At present a standard fluorescent lamp encloses approximately 20 milligrams of mercury. It is worth to mention that 1 gram of mercury is enough to contaminate a 2-acre pond (Bethlehem Lamp Recycling, 2008). Therefore, fluorescent lamps should never be incinerated due to vaporization of mercury (EHSO, 2011). Moreover, if a fluorescent lamp is sent to landfill, the mercury may possibly be released into the atmosphere or ground water from landfill vapour or leachate (SLM - Facility Solutions Nationwide, 2010).

As a result, the recommended way of treating waste fluorescent lamps is recycling. In the recycling procedure separation of toxic substances (such as mercury) from the glass, aluminium, and other lamp components is made and then all materials can be re-used in producing other products (EHSO, 2011).

There are two main ways of recycling fluorescent lamps. In the first one, fluorescent lamps with the use of a continuous vacuum filtration process are crushed and the different materials are separated (Figure 9.2). Afterwards, glass, aluminium and mercury-bearing phosphor powder is collected safely


and send to be recycled for use in manufacturing of other products. All the components of a fluorescent lamp can be recycled. Glass and cement industry can use the recycled glass as feedstock (manufacture of new glass products) and as aggregate respectively. Aluminium parts can be recycled as metal scrap. Following the retorting method, mercury is recovered from the mercury phosphor powder, and after further purification, pure mercury can be reused in thermometers, barometers, and electronic devices (Ecolights, 2008).

Figure 9.2: Recycling process by crushing fluorescent lamps (Ecolights, 2008)

The second way of recycling waste fluorescent lamps, involves the cut of the bases of a fluorescent lamp and the separation of their components. Then, the fluorescent powder including mercury vapour being in the stem glass is blown out. This procedure is called cut and blow process. Thereinafter, the procedure is the same as in the first case, phosphor and mercury are recovered after being purified and stem glass is sent to tube crushing procedure and the metal caps are sent for sorting. Cullet of the broken stem glass is sent for the manufacturing of new glass tubes where it is used as raw material, and aluminium and other materials (for example plastic) are separated and sent for recycling (Apisitpuvakul et al., 2008). In the following Figure the above mentioned process is described.


Figure 9.3: Existing Technology for Fluorescent Lamps recycling process (CoCusi Coque Co. Ltd, 2004 in Apisitpuvakul et al., 2008)

It is worth to mention that in some cases recovery of waste fluorescent lamps in industrial countries involves crushing of the tube glass under water to avoid atmospheric pollution from mercury vapour (M. A. Rabah, 2004).


9.2.1 Cyprus Though, as it was mentioned in Chapter 8.2.1 (previously mentioned in Action 3), all selected WEEE streams (cooling equipment, CRT screens and fluorescent lamps), are going to be collected from various sources, in combination with the utilisation a network of Green Points for the collection of various streams of waste. Sorting and storage for fluorescent lamps is going to be the same as for cooling equipment and CRT screens (Chapter 8.2.1).

As mentioned in Action 3, the quantities of lamps that exist in the Cypriot market do not justify the development of such a unit for their management in Cyprus, but neither also the visit of a mobile unit for the same reason. Consequently, lamps will be properly packed and exported for management in special licensed facilities abroad. Therefore, the lamps will be collected, stored and finally exported abroad.

9.2.2 Malta Collection and treatment of waste fluorescent lamps in Malta follows the same method as for cooling equipment and CRT screens as described in Chapter 8.2.2 mentioning that they are going to be sent abroad for treatment after collection.

9.2.3 Greece In Greece responsible for the management of WEEE including fluorescent lamps as it has been already mentioned is Appliances Recycling S.A. For the management (collection, sorting and


treatment) of waste fluorescent lamps the same method as described in Chapter 8.2.3 and 9.2.3 for cooling appliances and CRT Screens respectively is followed.

9.2.4 France As mentioned in Action 3, the only compliance scheme dealing with lamps (and only) including fluorescent lamps is Recyclum. Consequently Recyclum is in charge of the management in all four French islands under study. In order to make the management easier, Récylum has a representative of the company in each islands (except for Corsica-really close to mainland) to deal with everyday tasks.

Like other types of WEEE, used lamps can be collected through different ways, mainly through distributors or public waste yards (for households). There is also a network of professional collectors more specified in collection of non-household WEEE. However, as there is no distinction between household and professional WEEE, all collection points can be used for both types.

Récylum has faced certain inertia from all actors in the overseas territories as mentioned in Action 3, where the environmental activities are not as present as in the mainland. Regarding the collection activity itself, used lamps are systematically collected by trucks making a collection round for other wastes too (the production of used lamps would not be sufficient to fill in a truck). There is one collection operator per island. The collection operator is, except for the case of Corsica, also in charge of the storage and transfer to the treatment facility.

In Martinique, Guadeloupe and Reunion lamps, once collected, are brought to a gathering platform, where they are stored in former 40 feet containers. There is only one storage platform in each island. As used lamps are regarded as hazardous waste, these platforms are specific sites that require an authorization from public authorities. In Corsica, there is no storage centre. An operator comes from Marseille (mainland) each month to collect - among other materials - used lamps. Used lamps are then directly brought back to Marseille by boat (Action 3).

For the case of lamps, there are no sorting or treatment facilities on any of the islands studied. As for now, used lamps are only stored, until the quantity is sufficient to be sent for recycling. This actually causes some problems because the legal storing time is 90 days maximum and this period is not enough to gather sufficient quantity in the islands. So Récylum had to negotiate locally with local public authorities to obtain an extra storing time (6 to 12 months). Otherwise, Recylum is studying the feasibility of having a local crusher on each island (except for Corsica). This has the double advantage of reducing the volume of waste to be transported and also changes the status of waste (Action 3).

For the case of used lamps the collected quantities (in kilograms) for each island (years 2007-2008) are provided in Table 9.3. These quantities also include non-household waste quantities as there is no separation for the case of lamps.


Table 9.3: Collected used lamps quantities (kg) for each island under study in 2007 and 2008 (Lantoinette Xavier, personal communication, 4/9/09 – Action 3)

Total 2007

Total 2008 kg/inh

Public waste yards

Distributors Others

Corsica 605 1635 0.006 0% 100% 0%

Guadeloupe 0 1165 0.003 0% 30% 70%

Martinique 0 1790 0.005 0% 70% 30%

Reunion 0 4315 0.006 0.02% 50% 50%

As mentioned in Action 3, in mainland France, 3 850 000 kg were collected in 2008 (0.06 kg/inh). The performance in the mainland is about ten times higher than in island.

9.3 Cost analysis Cost analysis for Fluorescent lamps waste stream was carried out based on the “ Fluorescent lamps system process tree” shown in Figure 9.4. The data collected for the participating member states are shown in Table 9.4. Figure 9.4: System process diagram for recycling of Fluorescent lamps






Fluorescent lamps Collection Sorting/ Storage

Transport 1

Pre-Treatment

Recycling

Export


Country Collection Sorting Treatment


crashing at sorting centres

-Export


Crashing at various MRFs locally

-Export or recycle at local recycling centres

Island -Collection and storage

Stored until transfer to mainland

-Shipped to mainland


crashing at sorting centres

-Export


Crashing at various MRFs locally

-Export or recycle at local recycling centres


Stored until transfer to mainland

-Shipped to mainland

Table 9.5: Results of the data collection activity for Fluorescent Lamps


Table9.6: Cost Analysis for Fluorescent Lamps

Cyprus

Greece Greece Island France

France Island France Island France Island


Mainland (2008)

(Guadeloupe) (2008)

(Martinique) (2008)

(Reunion) (2008)

Tns collected 4 36.9 0.154

? 0

0

No Data

3849*

No data available

Costs (€/ton) collection 1100 22

1320*

Sorting / Storage 150 5 Transport 1 0 15 Recycling 0 25

Transport 2 100

Export 0

Total Expenses 1350 67 1320 Revenues Selling of Waste

Net Expenses *Recylum annual report 2008 -all figures for Cyprus were provided by Green Dot Cyprus for the year 2008

-2008 figures according to Greece Electrocycle (2010 yearly report)

9.4 Cost/ revenue analysis Fluorescent lamp economic data were only possible to obtain for Cyprus, Greece and France mainland. The obtained data were however, general in nature and could not be distributed in the examined cost categories. The relevant costs for Cyprus and France appear to be similar even though there is no apparent reason why this is so. Based on the obtained data there are no safe conclusions to be made i.e. comparing costs between countries.


9.5.1 Collection & Transport: Similar to the Cooling equipment and CRT screens, Fluorescent lamps are mainly collected through bring-in sites or electric goods retail shops take back systems. This system involves the public tak-ing (usually with light duty vehicles) the waste to the collection site where they are stored in large


containers. When the containers are full they are taken to a storing facility or a pre-treatment station where there treatment begins. In order to assess the environmental impacts (emissions) for this waste stream it has to be taken into consideration that two vehicle types are used. These two transportation steps, and their associated different vehicle loading factors, will therefore have dif-ferent environmental impacts per km driven. In this assessment estimations are made only for a bring-in site collection system due to data availability.

The analysis does not include Malta since it had not yet implemented the WEEE collective system at the time.

Table 9.7: Atmospheric emissions from the collection and transport activities of Fluorescent lamps screens Private car travel


Collected waste 0.9 - 36.9 3713.4 tn





171 95 L/tn per year

Carbon dioxide 131.10 - 393.30 21988.56

Kg/tn

Nitrous Oxide 0.01 - 0.02 0.96

Sulphur Dioxide 0.03 - 0.09 4.78


Collected waste 0.9 - 36.9 3713.4 tn


200.0 300.0 Km/trip





Carbon dioxide 3.3075 - 26.4600 39.6900

Kg/tn

Carbon Monoxide 0.0683 - 0.0683 0.0683


Nitrogen Oxides 0.1895 - 0.1895 0.1895

Nitrous Oxide 0.0013 - 0.0013 0.0013


Sulphur Dioxide 0.0051 - 0.0051 0.0051

Ammonia 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002




g/L Petrol

Nitrous Oxide 0.10


Ammonia 0.01


9.5.2 Treatment Cyprus has no recycling infrastructure for the fluorescent lamp waste stream and the treatment it follows includes crashing and exporting the fluorescent lamps to mainland Europe for recycling. The export of the fluorescent lamp waste is associated with an amount of atmospheric emissions (mainly) regarding the 5000 km ship voyage to mainland Europe. These emissions are estimated to 1348tns of CO2, 2.5tns of N2O and 30tns of SO2 assuming only one export trip per year is carried out.

Greece and France have in operation fluorescent lamp recycling centres but no detailed data re-garding their operation could be obtained. It is generally accepted that fluorescent lamps are diffi-cult in their management due to their 2% phosphorous content and 4% metal salts that have signifi-cant polluting potential to the soil and the groundwater as well as human health impacts. Other el-ements found in fluorescent lamps include lead and cadmium, both being dangerous substances. Despite the fact that about 98% of the lamps is recyclable i.e. glass, lead, phosphorous powder, many argue that more energy is required to produce and properly recycle fluorescent lamps than they actually save but there are no sufficient data to prove this.


10 Constraint Analysis

In the previous chapters of the report the BATs and the waste management practices have been presented and the economic and environmental aspects of recycling have been discussed. Based on the information provided by the precious chapters, a constraint analysis is presented here that discussed the main constraints faced by the participating member states and especially islands and island states. In order to identify any constraints we can first try to identify to what extend the participating coun-tries implement the BATs of waste management in the waste management systems. By reviewing the ‘Results of the data collection activity’ found for every waste stream against the BATs it is ap-parent that most countries do not implement the BAT at all or not in its full extend or in a combina-tion of other practices. For example, not all countries (even none) are utilizing the color sorting technologies available for the sorting of collected glass. Similarly, we can see that countries do not aim for the collection of the highest quality (specific stream for each waste) but use a mixture of bring in sites, kerbside collection and take-back systems in order to balance the volumes collected and the quality of the waste. As far as WEEE is concerned, again it is observed that countries like Malta and Cyprus implement practices to achieve the minimum legal compliance i.e. first stage treatment for cooling equipment, and then export their waste to larger countries in Europe or Asia. So it is apparent that some obstacles or constraints are preventing the member states from imple-menting the BATs or forcing them to settle with less. Through the information provided in the report, the following constraints can be identified:

- Cost of waste management - Income from waste management - Achieving legal compliance

Cost of waste management is crucial for waste organizations since they all strive to optimize their operations i.e. better schedules, optimal equipment etc. The cost of waste management is however in relation to the volume of waste produced by the population, the density of the population and the volume collected. The main obstacles faced by islands in this case are the limited population and the reduced volume of waste available for the waste management systems. Reduced volumes of waste means that recyclers cannot sell their material at better prices (economies of scale) and their incomes are lower. A lower income for recyclers means less money to invest in the infrastructure and operations that would make the company more efficient. Islands do have an advantage, that they usually have high population densities meaning that less distance has to be covered during the collection phase. However, islands usually have limited stor-age or sorting facilities and thus greater distances need to be covered to transport the collected waste. The largest constraint for islands however has to be the export costs associated with the fact that island communities need to ship their waste to the mainland where the recycling centres are located. This cost can range from 10-30% of the total costs as seen in the financial analysis of the selected waste streams.


Achievement of legal compliance and especially environmental claws may be more difficult in is-lands to the limited land availability and the proximity that this creates between the waste manage-ment infrastructure and sensitive receptors such as agricultural areas, inhabited areas, protected areas, waterways such as streams and rivers. As seen in this report, waste management, despite the fact that overall it may have positive effect on the environment due to avoidance of emissions, raw material energy etc. for the primary production of a product, it is associated at a local level mainly to significant environmental risks such as lead, phosphorous leachate and other toxic mate-rial found in WEEE appliances mainly. Due to the small geographic scale of islands pollution can easily affect largest percept of the population or any other receptor than in the mainland. Moreover, it should be taken into account that inadequate energy resources and the limiting prices of primary energy transportation together with the fact that costly imported fuels cause negative environmental impact and do not add to energy security of the islands, leading to a strong depend-ence on fossil fuels (usually diesel) in electricity production, with high price of small scale, fossil fuel-based technologies (Dena Zsigraiova et al., 2009). Other constraints as they appear in this report and in previous reports of this project include:

• Population in most islands presents large seasonal variations attributed to tourism that affect waste and energy planning

• Increased collection costs due to lower utilisation of collection equipment • Increased overheads due to inelastic nature of many overheads and inevitably a higher per

unit allocation of overheads. • Increased sorting costs due to the small scale of operations and the high fixed cost for sort-

ing units • Small size does not justify automations that can lower costs as they do in larger countries • Increased transportation cost due to distances from recycling plants and the sea transport


11 Conclusions

The implementation of recycling in islands does not always follow the financial rules of the market and recycling is carried out (for political social or other reasons) despite the fact that it may not financially viable or as effective as in the mainland. Considering the abovementioned constraints of waste management in islands, one can see that the special conditions and constraints that apply require islands to utilize different ap-proaches to waste management that may not even strictly follow the EU waste hierarchy. Collection and Energy Recovery from waste may be financially and environmentally more sensible in islands than collection and recycling. More specific studies are needed in order to verify this conclusion and provide the basis for re-evaluation of waste management priori-ties in islands.


12 References

1 Skordilis (2004), Modeling of integrated solid waste management systems in an island, Ministry for the Environment, Physical Planning and Public Works, 147 Patission Street, GR-11251 Athens, Greece, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 41 (2004) 243–254

2 Villanueva and H. Wenzel (2007), Paper waste – Recycling, incineration or landfilling? A review

of existing life cycle assessments, Waste Management 27 (2007) S29–S46 3 AISI (2005), Saving One Barrel of Oil per Ton (SOBOT), A New Roadmap for Transformation

of Steelmaking Process, American Iron And Steel Institute 4 Alejandra Sepúlveda, Mathias Schluep, Fabrice G. Renaud, Martin Streicher, Ruediger Kuehr,

Christian Hagelüken and Andreas C. Gerecke (2010), A review of the environmental fate and effects of hazardous substances released from electrical and electronic equipment during recycling: Examples from China and India, Environmental Impact Assessment Review 30 (2010) 28–41

5 Alexis M. Troschinetz and James R. Mihelcic (2009), Sustainable recycling of municipal solid

waste in developing countries, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Sustainable Futures Institute, Michigan Technological University, 1400 Townsend Dr., Houghton, MI 49931, USA, Waste Management 29 (2009) 915–923

6 Alison Jane Coulthard (2003), Agreement on the collection and recovery of Metal Packaging

Waste and on the Optimization of Metal Packaging 7 Alupro (2009), All about aluminium packaging in the UK, Recycling processes,

www.alupro.org.uk 8 Amelia L. Craighilla and Jane C. Powellav (1996), Lifecycle assessment and economic

evaluation of recycling: a case study, Resources. Conservation and Recycling 17 (1996) 75-96 9 American Chemistry Council (2010), Lifecycle of a Plastic Product,

http://plastics.americanchemistry.com/Life-Cycle 10 Anna Bjorklund and Goran Finnveden (2005), Recycling revisited—life cycle comparisons of

global warming impact and total energy use of waste management strategies, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 44 (2005) 309–317

11 Anna Bjorklund, Magnus Dalemo and Ulf Sonesson (1999), Evaluating a municipal waste

management plan using orware, Journal of Cleaner Production 7 (1999) 271–280 12 Apeal (2009), Recycling rate of 69% confirms steel for packaging’s continued position as

leader in Europe, Press Release - 2007 Recycling Achievements – March 2009

http://www.alupro.org.uk/

http://plastics.americanchemistry.com/Life-Cycle


13 Apeal (2010), Recycled & Efficient, http://www.apeal.org/en/sustainability/environmental-

pillar/steel-is-europes-most-recycled-packaging-material 14 Apeal (2010), Steel for Packaging, Update, Issue #1, January 2010 15 Aluminium Recycling in Europe: The Road to High Quality Products, European Aluminium

Association (EAA), 2006 16 Bernt Johnke, Robert Hoppaus, Eugene Lee, Bill Irving, T. Martinsen and K. Mareckova

(2003), Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Emissions from Waste Incineration, Background Paper

17 Bethlehem Lamp Recycling (2010), Why Recycle Fluorescent Lamps?,

http://www.bethlehemlamprecycling.com/why-recycle.html 18 Bio Intelligence Service (2005), Environmental- and Cost-Efficiency of Household Packaging

Waste Collection Systems: Impact of a Deposit System on an Existing Multimaterial Kerbside Selective Collection System, BIO INTELLIGENCE SERVICE S.A.S.

19 Bipro (2009), Possibilities for efficient collection and treatment of packaging waste, Information

Exchange Event on Waste Management Planning and Waste Prevention Programmes, Power Point Presentation

20 BIR (2010), Paper, http://www.bir.org/industry/paper/ 21 Bnet (2006), Business Publications, Single-Stream Collection Systems Offer Obstacles and

Opportunities, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/tn_bus/?tag=content;col1 22 Brett H. Robinson (2009), E-waste: An assessment of global production and environmental

impacts, Science of the Total Environment 408 (2009) 183–191 23 British Glass (2003), Glass Recycling - Life Cycle Carbon Dioxide Emissions, A Life Cycle

Analysis Report Prepared for British Glass by Enviros Consulting Ltd November 2003 24 Bruno Gervet (2007), THE USE OF CRUDE OIL IN PLASTIC MAKING CONTRIBUTES TO

GLOBAL WARMING, Renewable Energy Research Group, Division of Architecture and Infrastructure, Luleå University of Technology, SE-97187 Luleå, Sweden

25 California Environmental Protection Agency (2001), MANAGEMENT OF USED CATHODE

RAY TUBES (SUPERCEDES LETTER DATED MARCH 20, 2001), Department of Toxic Substances Control, Sacramento, California 95812-0806

http://www.apeal.org/en/sustainability/environmental-pillar/steel-is-europes-most-recycled-packaging-material

http://www.apeal.org/en/sustainability/environmental-pillar/steel-is-europes-most-recycled-packaging-material

http://www.bethlehemlamprecycling.com/why-recycle.html

http://www.bir.org/industry/paper/

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/tn_bus/?tag=content;col1


26 CalRecycle (2010), Summary of the DTSC Response to Questions Regarding Management of Cathode Ray Tubes, http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/electronics/regissues/dtscmff/032001summ.htm

27 Carl Kruger (2009), Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, The Myths Explained 28 Cascadia Consulting Group (2006), Significant Tables and Figures, Targeted Statewide Waste

Characterization Study: Characterization and Quantification of Residuals from Materials Recovery Facilities, "California Integrated Waste Management Board, Publication #341-06-005."

29 Ching-Hwa Lee, Chang-Tang Chang, Kuo-Shuh Fan and Tien-Chin Chang (2004), An

overview of recycling and treatment of scrap computers, Journal of Hazardous Materials B114 (2004) 93–100

30 Christer Berglund (2006), The assessment of households’ recycling costs: The role of personal

motives, Lulea° University of Technology, Division of Economics, SE-971 87 Lulea° , Sweden, Ecological Economics 56 (2006) 560– 569

31 Christian Hagelüken (2006), Improving metal returns and eco-efficiency in electronics recycling

- a holistic approach for interface optimisation between pre-processing and integrated metals smelting and refining, Umicore Precious Metals Refining. Umicore AG & Co. KG, Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE International Symposium on Electronics & the Environment, 8-11 May 2006, San Francisco, 218-223

32 Christophe Defeuilley and Sylvie Lupton (1998), The future place of recycling in household

waste policy: the case of France, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 24 (1998) 217–233 33 COVEC (2007), Recycling: Cost Benefit Analysis, Prepared for Ministry for the Environment, ©

Copyright 2007 Covec Ltd. All rights reserved 34 Creating A Better World (2010), Commonly Recycled Materials,

http://www.freewebs.com/2ipwthead/commonlyrecycledthings.htm 35 CRI (2009), Understanding economic and environmental impacts of single-stream collection

systems, 36 CRT Recycling Ltd (2008), The Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Regulations,

Government consultation on new regulations and further development of the supporting infrastructure to take effect from the fourth compliance period (1 January – 31 December 2010 onwards)

37 CWC (2000), Best Practices in Glass Recycling, Automated Color Sorting of Recycled Glass,

BP-GL2-04-03

http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/electronics/regissues/dtscmff/032001summ.htm

http://www.freewebs.com/2ipwthead/commonlyrecycledthings.htm


38 D. W. EDWARDS and J. SCHELLING (1999), MUNICIPAL WASTE LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT Part 2: Transport Analysis and Glass Case Study, 0957 –5820/99/$10.00+0.00 ,© Institution of Chemical Engineers, Trans IChemE, Vol 77, Part B, September 1999

39 D.P. Komilis, T. Haritopoulou and A. Togia (2007), Municipal Solid Waste Unit Production

Rates and Estimation of the Required Number of Waste Storage Containers in the Municipality of Athens, Global NEST Journal, Vol 9, No 1, pp 1-5, 2007, Copyright© 2007 Global NEST, Printed in Greece. All rights reserved

40 David J. Hurd (2003), Best Practices and Industry Standards in PET Plastic Recycling, For:

Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development’s Clean Washington Center, Contract # S97-220-028

41 David Laner and Helmut Rechberger (2007), Treatment of cooling appliances: Interrelations

between environmental protection, resource conservation, and recovery rates, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2007) 136–155

42 Debra A. Miller (2010), Garbage and Recycling, © 2010 Gale, Cengage Learning, ISBN-13:

978-1-4205-0147-6, ISBN-10: 1-4205-0147-X 43 Defra (2006), Guidance on Best Available Treatment Recovery and Recycling Techniques

(BATRRT) and treatment of Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE), Crown copyright 2006

44 Dominic Hogg (2003), Costs for Municipal Waste Management in the EU Final Report to

Directorate General Environment, European Commission 45 DSM Environmental Services (2008), Analysis of New York City Department of Sanitation

Kerbside Recycling and Refuse Costs, Prepared For Natural Resources Defense Council, FINAL REPORT, May 2008

46 E. Gidarakos, G. Havas, P. Ntzamilis (2006), Municipal solid waste composition determination

supporting the integrated solid waste management system in the island of Crete, Laboratory of Toxic and Hazardous Waste Management, Department of Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Crete, GR-73100 Polytechnioupolis Chania, Crete, Greece, Waste Management 26 (2006) 668–679

47 E. Goldberg (2002), POLICY INSTRUMENTS FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT, Legislative basis

for national policy instruments in selected countries 48 Earth911 (2010), Paper Recycling In Your Community,

http://earth911.com/recycling/paper/paper-recycling-in-my-community/

http://earth911.com/recycling/paper/paper-recycling-in-my-community/


49 EC (2003), New Solutions in Energy Utilisation WTE-ISLE Waste Management in Island Communities: Strategy to Integrate Waste-to-Energy Policies, 5th Framework Programme of the European Commission, DG-TREN, European Commission, ENERGIE, Produced by Islenet

50 Ecolights (2010), Why Recycle Lamps?, http://www.ecolights.com/whyrecycle.html 51 EEA (2005), Effectiveness of packaging waste management systems in selected countries: an

EEA pilot study, EEA Report No 3/2005, ISSN 1725-9177 52 EEA (2006), Paper and cardboard — recovery or disposal? Review of life cycle assessment

and cost-benefit analysis on the recovery and disposal of paper and cardboard, EEA Technical report No 5/2006, ISSN 1725-2237

53 EEA (2008), Better management of municipal waste will reduce greenhouse gas emissions,

ISSN 1830-2246 54 EEC (2008), Plastics Recycling Feasibility Study, Report of the Executive Director of

Environment, Economy and Culture, EEC/08/254/HQ, Devon Authorities Waste Reduction and Recycling Committee

55 Eileen Brettler Berenyi (2008), A Compatibility Study: Recycling and Waste-to-Energy Work in

Concert, Governmental Advisory Associates, Inc. 56 EMSD (2008), Guidelines on Energy Efficiency Equipment, T5 Fluorescent Lamps, Energy

Efficiency Office, Electrical and Mechanical Service Department 57 Environment, Health and Safety Online (2010), EHSO's Fluorescent Lights and Lighting

Disposal & Recycling Page, http://www.ehso.com/ehshome/fluoresc.htm 58 Enviros Consulting Ltd (2003), Glass Recycling – Life Cycle Carbon Dioxide Emissions,

BRITISH GLASS MANUFACTURERS CONFEDERATION – PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, GLASS RECYCLING – LIFE CYCLE CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS, CAN BR110 004

59 ERPA (2010), http://www.erpa.info/ 60 EuPC (2010), Plastic Packaging Markets in Europe,

http://www.plasticsconverters.eu/markets/packaging 61 European Lamp Companies Federation (2011), Lighting Application,

http://www.elcfed.org/2_lighting_applications.html 62 European Plastics Recyclers Association (2010), How to Increase the Mechanical Recycling of

Post-Consumer Plastics 63 European Recovered Paper Council (2010), European Declaration on Paper Recycling

http://www.ecolights.com/whyrecycle.html

http://www.ehso.com/ehshome/fluoresc.htm

http://www.erpa.info/

http://www.plasticsconverters.eu/markets/packaging

http://www.elcfed.org/2_lighting_applications.html


64 F. Mear, P. Yot, M. Cambon and M. Ribes (2006), The characterization of waste cathode-ray tube glass, Waste Management 26 (2006) 1468–1476

65 F. Valerio (2010), Environmental impacts of post-consumer material managements: Recycling,

biological treatments, incineration, National Institute for Cancer Research, Department of Epidemiology and Prevention, Environmental Chemistry, Genoa, l.go R. Benzi No. 10, Genoa 16132, Italy, Waste Management xxx (2010) xxx–xxx

66 Federal Environment Agency Austria (1998), Cost-Benefit Analysis of Plastic Recycling, Macro-

economic assessment of mechanical recycling of plastic waste in Austria including ecological effects, Harald HUTTERER, Harald PILZ GUA - Corporation for Ecological Waste Management, By order of Federal Environment Agency Austria, Complete version of the study (German): Monographien - Vol. 98, Federal Environment Agency Austria

67 Firas Awaja and Dumitru Pavel (2005), Recycling of PET, European Polymer Journal 41 (2005) 1453–1477

68 Francesco Cherubini, Silvia Bargigli and Sergio Ulgiati (2009), Life cycle assessment (LCA) of

waste management strategies: Landfilling, sorting plant and incineration, Energy 34 (2009) 2116–2123

69 Francesco Paolo La Mantia (1996), Recycling of PVC and Mixed Plastic Waste, ChemTec

Publishing, Copyright © 1996 by ChemTec Publishing, ISBN 1-895198-11-9 70 Friends of the Earth (2009), Briefing: Recycling collections – source separated or

commingled?, 71 Fuzhan Nasiri and Gordon Huang (2008), A fuzzy decision aid model for environmental

performance assessment in waste recycling, Faculty of Environmental Systems Engineering, University of Regina, Regina, SK, Canada S4S-0A2, Environmental Modelling & Software 23 (2008) 677- 689

72 Giovanni De Feo and Carmela Malvano (2009), The use of LCA in selecting the best MSW

management system, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Salerno, via Ponte don Melillo 1, 84084 Fisciano (SA), Italy, Waste Management 29 (2009) 1901–1915

73 Glass Packaging Institute (2010), Collection Best Practices, Tips for High-Quality Cullet,

http://www.gpi.org/recycle-glass/collection/ 74 Greanpeace (1994), Greenfreeze A Revolution In Domestic Refrigeration,

http://archive.greenpeace.org/ozone/greenfreeze/ 75 Green Facts (2011), Compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs),

http://www.greenfacts.org/glossary/abc/compact-fluorescent-lamps-cfls.htm

http://www.gpi.org/recycle-glass/collection/collection-best-practices.html

http://www.gpi.org/recycle-glass/collection/tips-for-highquality-cullet.html

http://www.gpi.org/recycle-glass/collection/

http://archive.greenpeace.org/ozone/greenfreeze/

http://www.greenfacts.org/glossary/abc/compact-fluorescent-lamps-cfls.htm


76 Green Solutions (2007), Clark County Kerbside Recycling Feasibility Study, Final Report, prepared for: Clark County Department of Public Works, Vancouver, WA

77 Grundon (2011), Recycling, Fridges,

http://www.grundon.com/whatwedo/recyclableMaterialsElectricalFridges.htm 78 Hai-Yong Kang and Julie M. Schoenung (2005), Electronic waste recycling: A review of U.S.

infrastructure and technology options, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 45 (2005) 368–400

79 Hai-Yong Kang and Julie M. Schoenung (2005), Electronic waste recycling: A review of U.S.

infrastructure and technology options, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 45 (2005) 368–400

80 Hanna Merrild, Anders Damgaard and Thomas H. Christensen (2008), Life cycle assessment

of waste paper management: The importance of technology data and system boundaries in assessing recycling and incineration, Department of Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Miljoevej, Bygning 113, DK-2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2008) 1391–1398

81 Hanna Merrild, Anders Damgaard and Thomas H. Christensen (2008), Life cycle assessment

of waste paper management: The importance of technology data and system boundaries in assessing recycling and incineration, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2008) 1391–1398

82 Haynes C. Goddard (1995), The benefits and costs of alternative solid waste management

policies, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 13 (1995) 183-213 83 Hischier R. (2007) Life Cycle Inventories of Packagings and Graphical Papers. Ecoinvent re-

port No. 11, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, 2007. 84 Horng-Guang Leu and Sheng H. Lin (1998), Cost–benefit analysis of resource material

recycling, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 23 (1998) 183–192 85 I.Wernick and N.J. Themelis, "Recycling Metals for the Environment", Annual Reviews Energy

and Environment, Vol. 23, p.465-97, 1998. 86 ICER (2003), GW-12.10-130: New Approach to Cathode Ray Tube, (CRT) Recycling,

http://www.pdfcari.com/GW-12.10-130:-NEW-APPROACH-TO-CATHODE-RAY-TUBE-%28CRT%29-RECYCLING.html

87 International Labour Office (2007), A Technical Step by Step Guide of How to Start a

Community Based Wste Recycling Business, Start Your Waste Recycling Business Business Manual

http://www.grundon.com/whatwedo/recyclableMaterialsElectricalFridges.htm




88 J.D. Murphy and N. Power (2007), A technical, economic, and environmental analysis of energy production from newspaper in Ireland, Waste Management 27 (2007) 177–192

89 Jannick H. Schmidt, Peter Holm, Anne Merrild and Per Christensen (2007), Life cycle

assessment of the waste hierarchy – A Danish case study on waste paper, Waste Management 27 (2007) 1519–1530

90 Jeffrey Morris (1996), Recycling versus incineration: an energy conservation analysis, Sound

Resource Management Group, Inc., I19 Pine Street, Suite 203, Seattle, WA 98101. USA, Journal of Hazardous Materials 47 (1996) 277-293

91 Jens Brobech Legarth (1997), Environmental decision making for recycling options,

Department of' Manuf~tcturing Engineering, The Technical University of Denmark, Building 425, DK-2800 Lyngby, Denmark, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 19 (1997) 109 135

92 Joao Neiva de Figueiredo and Sergio Fernando Mayerle (2008), Production and Systems

Engineering Department, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Trindade Campus, Caixa Postal 476, Zip Code: 88010-970, Floriano´ polis, SC, Brazil, Transportation Research Part E 44 (2008) 731–752

93 Jobien Laurijssen, Marc Marsidi, Annita Westenbroek, Ernst Worrell and Andre Faaij (2010),

Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010) 1208–1218

94 Joe Pickin (2008), Representations of environmental concerns in cost–benefit analyses of solid

waste recycling, Hyder Consulting, L16, 31 Queen Street, Melbourne, Victoria 3000, Australia, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 53 (2008) 79–85

95 John Butler and Paul Hooper (2005), Dilemmas in optimising the environmental benefit from

recycling: A case study of glass container waste management in the UK, Department of Environmental & Geographical Sciences, Manchester Metropolitan University, Chester Street, Manchester M1 5GD, UK, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 45 (2005) 331–355

96 Josette Camilleri, Michael Sammut and Franco E. Montesin (2006), Utilization of pulverized

fuel ash in Malta, Waste Management 26 (2006) 853–860 97 Karol Koneczny and David W. Pennington (2007), Life cycle thinking in waste management:

Summary of European Commission’s Malta 2005 workshop and pilot studies, European Commission, Directorate General Joint Research Centre (JRC), Institute of Environment and Sustainability (IES), Ispra, Italy, Waste Management 27 (2007) S92–S97

98 LAH T. J. (2002), Critical Review of the Cost-Benefit Analysis in the Literature on Municipal

Solid Waste Management, International Review of Public Administration 2002, Vol. 7, No. 1


99 LBA Associates and Skumatz Economic Research Associates (2008), Best Management Practices for Glass Recycling in Northern Colorado

100 Li Shen, Ernst Worrell and Martin K. Patel (2010), Open-loop recycling: A LCA case study of

PET bottle-to-fibre recycling, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55 (2010) 34–52 101 M.C. Chen, A. Ruijs and J. Wesseler (2005), Solid waste management on small islands:the

case of Green Island, Taiwan, Environmental Economics and Natural Resources Group, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 8130, 6700 EW Wageningen, The Netherlands, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 45 (2005) 31–47

102 Mahmoud A. Rabah (2004), Recovery of aluminium, nickel–copper alloys and salts from spent

fluorescent lamps, Waste Management 24 (2004) 119–126 103 Maria Andersson and Chris von Borgstede (2010), Differentiation of determinants of low-cost

and high-cost recycling, University of Gothenburg, Sweden, Journal of Environmental Psychology xxx (2010) 1–7

104 Maria Ljunggren Soderman (2003), Including indirect environmental impacts in waste

management planning, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38 (2003) 213 – 241 105 Marie Lynn Miranda and Brack Hale (2005), Paradise recovered: energy production and waste

management in island environments, Energy Policy 33 (2005) 1691–1702 106 Marie Lynn Miranda and Brack Hale (2005), Paradise recovered: energy production and waste

management in island environments, Energy Policy 33 (2005) 1691–1702 107 Martin Patel, Norbert von Thienen, Eberhard Jochem and Ernst Worrell (2000), Recycling of

plastics in Germany, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 29 (2000) 65–90 108 Materials for the Future Foundation (2001), The monitor of electronics recycling issues CRT

Glass to CRT Glass Recycling, Issue #1 109 Matías González Hernández and Roberto Rendeiro Martín-Cejas (2005), Incentives Towards

Sustainable Management of the Municipal Solid Waste on Islands, Sustainable Development, Sust. Dev. 13, 13–24 (2005), Published online 4 October 2004 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/sd.241

110 Matthew J. Franchetti (2009), Case study: Determination of the economic and operational

feasibility of a material recovery facility for municipal recycling in Lucas County, Ohio, USA, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 53 (2009) 535–543

111 Meko Ltd (2002), Comparing LCD & CRT, Monitor Costs, An independently prepared White

Paper, Sponsored by NEC-Mitsubishi Electronics Display-UK Ltd, ©Meko Ltd 2002, Revised Edition September 2002


112 Mette Skovgaard, Nanja Hedal, Alejandro Villanueva, Frits Møller Andersen and Helge Larsen

(2008), Municipal waste management and greenhouse gases, ETC/RWM working paper 2008/1, European Topic Centre on Resource and Waste Management, Risoe National Laboratory, Technical University of Denmark – DTU

113 Michela Vellini and Michela Savioli (2009), Energy and environmental analysis of glass

container production and recycling, Energy 34 (2009) 2137–2143 114 Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance ( 2002), Minnesota’s recycling industries:

Economic activity summary, 115 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (2006), Single-Stream and Dual-Stream Recycling:

Comparative Impacts of Commingled Recyclables Processing, by Tim Goodman & Associates 116 Misuzu Asari, Kazuki Fukui and Shin-ichi Sakai (2008), Life-cycle flow of mercury and recycling

scenario of fluorescent lamps in Japan, Science of the Total Environment 393 (2008) 1 – 10 117 Mogensen GmbH & Co. KG (2008), Recycling & Waste Handling, Glass Recycling, bulk solids

handling · Vol. 28 · 2008 · No. 1 118 Molly Macauley, Karen Palmer and Jhih-Shyang Shih (2003), Dealing with electronic waste:

modeling the costs and environmental benefits of computer monitor disposal, Journal of Environmental Management 68 (2003) 13–22

119 Molly Macauley, Karen Palmer and Jhih-Shyang Shih (2003), Dealing with electronic waste:

modeling the costs and environmental benefits of computer monitor disposal, Journal of Environmental Management, Volume 68, Issue 1, 1 May 2003, Pages 13-22

120 Molly Macauley, Karen Palmer, Jhih-Shyang Shih, Sarah Cline, and Heather Holsinger (2001),

Modeling the Costs and Environmental Benefits of Disposal Options for End-of-Life Electronic Equipment: The Case of Used Computer Monitors, Resources for the Future, June 2001 • Discussion Paper 01–27

121 Montana Department of Environmental Quality (2004), The Economic and Ecological Impacts

of Recycling in Montana, Air, Energy, and Pollution Prevention Bureau Business & Community Assistance Program

122 N. Menad (1999), Cathode ray tube recycling, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 26

(1999) 143–154 123 Nag A. and Vizayakamura K. (2005), Environment Education and Solid Waste Management,

Copyright © 2005, New Age International (P) Ltd., Publishers, Published by New Age International (P) Ltd., Publishers, ISBN (13) : 978-81-224-2343-3

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03014797

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03014797

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=%23TOC%236871%232003%23999319998%23432007%23FLA%23&_cdi=6871&_pubType=J&view=c&_auth=y&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=8a85f797539599f706a3b6338da0ad5e


124 New Zealand Ministry of the Environment (2002), Assessment of the greenhouse Gas Emissions from Waste Disposal As a Result of Implementation of the Proposed New Zealand Waste Strategy, Prepared by: Tonkin & Taylor Ltd in association with SCS-Wetherill Environmental, Reference Number 19518 April 2002

125 Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (2008), Glass Recycling Through Kerbside

Collection and Container Deposit Legislation, 126 PACKAGING REPORTER (2009), For the food & beverage industry, METAL PACKAGING,

www.developtechnology.com 127 Paperonline (2010), The paper recycling process,

http://www.paperonline.org/environment/paper-recycling/the-paper-recycling-process 128 Paperrecycles (2009), Community Recycling, Communicating the What? How? Where? and

When?, Tips and perspectives from the American Forest & Paper Association 129 Peter Beigl, Sandra Lebersorger and Stefan Salhofer (2008), Modelling municipal solid waste

generation: A review, Institute of Waste Management, Department of Water, Atmosphere and Environment, BOKU – University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Muthgasse 107, 1190 Vienna, Austria, Waste Management 28 (2008) 200–214

130 Peter Tucker, Joy Grayson and David Speirs (2000), Integrated effects of a reduction in

collection frequency for a kerbside newspaper recycling scheme, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 31 (2000) 149–170

131 Plastic Europe (2009), Plastics: Too valuable to be thrown away, Recovery, recycling and

resource conservation, Association of Plastic Manufacturers, www.plasticseurope.org 132 Plastics Europe, EUPC, Epro and EuPR (2008), The Compelling Facts about Plastics, An

Analysis of Plastics Production, Demand and Recovery for 2006 in Europe, 133 Pure Planet Recycling (2008), Fridge Freezer Recycling and White Goods Recycling,

http://www.pureplanetrecycling.co.uk/white-goods-recycling.htm 134 R E Horne and J Gertsakis (2006), A Literature Review on the Environmental and Health

Impacts of Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment, Report prepared for the Ministry for the Environment, Government of New Zealand, This report was prepared by RMIT University (Centre for Design).

135 R T Pringle and M B Barker (2004), Starting a Waste Plastics Recycling Business, Report

Prepared For Aberdeen Forward and Aberdeenshire Council 136 R. Hischier, P. Wager and J. Gauglhofer (2005), Does WEEE recycling make sense from an

environmental perspective? The environmental impacts of the Swiss take-back and recycling

http://www.developtechnology.com/

http://www.paperonline.org/environment/paper-recycling/the-paper-recycling-process

http://www.plasticseurope.org/

http://www.pureplanetrecycling.co.uk/white-goods-recycling.htm


systems for waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), Swiss Federal Institute for Materials Testing and Research, Empa/Technology and Society Lab, Lerchenfeldstr. 5, CH-9014 St. Gallen, Switzerland, Environmental Impact Assessment Review 25 (2005) 525– 539,

137 R. Hischier, P. Wager and J. Gauglhofer (2005), Does WEEE recycling make sense from an

environmental perspective? The environmental impacts of the Swiss take-back and recycling systems for waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), Environmental Impact Assessment Review 25 (2005) 525– 539

138 Recycling 4 you (2010), Computer Recycling and IT Equipment Disposal : Collection and

shredding of all Equipment in the UK for 100% data protection, http://www.recycling4you.co.uk/computer-recycling.htm

139 Recycling Sympraxis (2009), LIFE07 ENV/GR/000265 - Report on state of the art recycling

lifecycle technologies and applications, Report on state of the art recycling lifecycle technologies and applications. Q-PLAN ΒΟΡΕΙΟΥ ΕΛΛΑΔΟΣ Ε.Π.Ε.

140 Recycling Sympraxis (2009), Public- Private Partnerships to optimize waste prevention,

recovery and recycling systems in mass tourism destinations, http://www.recyclingsympraxis.gr/en/page/general_info

141 Robert A. Bohm, David H. Folz, Thomas C. Kinnaman and Michael J. Podolsky (2010), The

costs of municipal waste and recycling programs, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010) 864–871

142 Robert Gale (2006), Environmental costs at a Canadian paper mill: a case study of

Environmental Management Accounting (EMA), Institute of Environmental Studies, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia, Journal of Cleaner Production 14 (2006) 1237- 1251

143 Robert U. Ayres (1997), Metals recycling: economic and environmental implications, INSEAD,

Boule6ard de Constance, F-77305, Fontainebleau, France, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 21 (1997) 145–173

144 S. M. Evans, M. Dawson, J. Day, C. L. J. Frid, M. E. Gill, L. A. Pattisinat and J. Porter (1995),

Domestic Waste and TBT Pollution in Coastal Areas of Ambon Island (Eastern Indonesia), Marine Pollution Bulletin. Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 109-115, 1995, Elsevier Science Ltd, Printed in Great Britain

145 Samonporn Suttibak and Vilas Nitivattananon (2008), Assessment of factors influencing the

performance of solid waste recycling programs, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 53 (2008) 45–56

146 Shannon Binns, Eliza Kretzmann, Monica Kurpiewski, Sungah Lee, Seth Carlson, Safet Marke,

Allison Reilly, Carrie Senefelder, Samuel Wade, Sarah Wilson and Prof. Steve Cohen (2006),

http://www.recycling4you.co.uk/computer-recycling.htm

http://www.recyclingsympraxis.gr/en/page/general_info


S 510: Electronic Waste Recycling Promotion and Consumer Protection Act, Final Report, The Workshop in Applied Earth Systems Management I, Master of Public Administration Program in Environmental Science and Policy, Columbia University

147 Shinichiro Nakamura and Yasushi Kondo (2006), A waste input–output life-cycle cost analysis

of the recycling of end-of-life electrical home appliances, School of Political Science and Economics, Waseda University, 1-6-1 Nishi-waseda, Tokyo, 169-8050, Japan, Ecological Economics 57 (2006) 494– 506

148 Shinichiro Nakamura and Yasushi Kondo (2009), Eco Efficiency in Industrial and Science,

Waste Input-Output Analysis, Concepts and Application to Industrial Ecology, 2009 Springer Science & Business Media B.V., ISBN: 978-1-4020-9901-4 e-ISBN: 978-1-4020-9902-1, Library of Congress Control Number: 2008943987

149 Sintef (2010), Automatic sorting of waste for recycling, http://www.sintef.no/home/Information-

and-Communication-Technology-ICT/Optical-measurement-systems-and-data-analysis-/Projects/Automatic-sorting-of-waste-for-recycling/

150 SLM (2010), Fluorescent Lamp Risks & Recycling,

http://slmwaste.com/news/articles/fluorescent-lamp-risks/ 151 Small Business Development Centers (1998), Writing Business Plans for Recycling

Enterprises: Plastics, Glass or Rubber 152 Stig Bystrom and Lars Lonnstedt (1997), Paper recycling: environmental and economic impact,

Resources, Conservation and Recycling 21 (1997) 109-127 153 SubsTech (2010), Plastics recycling,

http://www.substech.com/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=plastics_recycling 154 Susan Kinsel la and Richard Gertman (2007), Single Stream Recycling Best Practices Manual,

2006-2007 Conservatree and Environmental Planning Consultants 155 SustainPack (2010), Recycling and Waste Paper, http://www.sustainpack.com/aap_rwp.html 156 T. Manios (2004), The composting potential of different organic solid wastes: experience from

the island of Crete, School of Agricultural Technology, Technological and Educational Institute of Crete, Heraklion, 71500, Crete, Greece, Environment International 29 (2004) 1079– 1089

157 T. Matsuto, C.H. Jung and N. Tanaka (2004), Material and heavy metal balance in a recycling

facility for home electrical appliances, Waste Management 24 (2004) 425–436 158 The Association of Postconsumer Plastic Recyclers (2010), Technical Resources,

http://www.plasticsrecycling.org/technical-resources

http://www.sintef.no/home/Information-and-Communication-Technology-ICT/Optical-measurement-systems-and-data-analysis-/Projects/Automatic-sorting-of-waste-for-recycling/



http://slmwaste.com/news/articles/fluorescent-lamp-risks/

http://www.substech.com/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=plastics_recycling

http://www.sustainpack.com/aap_rwp.html

http://www.plasticsrecycling.org/technical-resources


159 The Plastics Portal (2010), Recovery & recycling of PET, http://www.plasticseurope.org/what-is-plastic/types-of-plastics/pet/recovery-recycling-of-pet.aspx

160 The Wasteguide (2010), Lighting,

http://wasteonline.brix.fatbeehive.com/resources/Wasteguide/mn_wastetypes_lighting.html 161 Tim Goodman & Associates (2003), Materials Recovery Facilities Operational Assessment,

Final Report and optimization Guide, Prepared for: Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance,

162 Titech (2010), Paper Sorting, http://www.titech.com/waste-sorting/paper-sorting-10702 163 Tom Chilton, Stephen Burnley and Suresh Nesaratnam (2010), A life cycle assessment of the

closed-loop recycling and thermal recovery of post-consumer PET, Department of Design, Development, Environment and Materials, The Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, United Kingdom, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010) 1241–1249

164 (Townsend, T., et al., Characterization of Lead Leachability from Cathode Ray Tubes Using the

Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure. Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, 1999)

165 UK Environment Agency (2002), Guidance on the Recovery and Disposal of Controlled

Substances Contained in Refrigerators and Freezers, © Environment Agency, First Published 2002

166 UK Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (2005), RECYCLING HOUSEHOLD

WASTE, Postnote December 2005 Number 252 167 United Nations Environmental Program (2009), Sustainable Innovation and Technology

Transfer Industrial Sector Studies, RECYCLING – FROM E-WASTE TO RESOURCES, Copyright © United Nations Environment Program & United Nations University, 2009

168 United Nations University. AEA Technology, GAIKER, Regional Environmental Center for

Central and Eastern Europe, TU Delft - Design for Sustainability (2008) 2008 Review of Directive 2002/96 on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE), Contract No: 07010401/2006/442493/ETU/G4 ENV.G.4/ETU/2006/0032

169 US EPA (1995), Pollution Prevention – Environmental Impact Reduction Checklists for

NEPA/309 reviewers January 1995, Prepared by: Science Application International Corporation 170 US EPA (1997), Full Cost Accounting for Municipal Solid Waste Management: A Handbook,

Solid Waste and Emergency Response 5305W, EPA 530-R-95-041 171 US EPA (1999), Collection Efficiency, Strategies for Success, Solid Waste and Emergency

Response (5306W), EPA530-K-99-007

http://www.plasticseurope.org/what-is-plastic/types-of-plastics/pet/recovery-recycling-of-pet.aspx

http://www.plasticseurope.org/what-is-plastic/types-of-plastics/pet/recovery-recycling-of-pet.aspx

http://wasteonline.brix.fatbeehive.com/resources/Wasteguide/mn_wastetypes_lighting.html

http://www.titech.com/waste-sorting/paper-sorting-10702


172 US EPA (1999), Getting More for Less, Improving Collection Efficiency, Solid Waste and

Emergency Response (5306W), EPA530-R-99-038 173 US EPA (2010), Final Rules on Cathode Ray Tubes and Discarded Mercury-Containing

Equipment, Wastes - Hazardous Waste, Final Rules on Cathode Ray Tubes and Discarded Mercury-Containing Equipment, http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/recycling/electron/

174 US EPA (2010), Materials Characterization Paper, In Support of the Proposed Rulemaking –

Identification of Nonhazardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid Waste Scrap Plastics 175 US EPA (2010), Mercury Releases and Spills, http://www.epa.gov/hg/spills/ 176 US EPA (2011), Ozone Layer Protection, Global Warming Potentials of ODS Substitutes,

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/geninfo/gwps.html 177 V. Krivtsov, P.A. Wäger, P. Dacombe, P.W. Gilgen, S. Heaven,L.M. Hilty and C.J. Banks

(2004), Analysis of energy footprints associated with recycling of glass and plastic—case studies for industrial ecology, Ecological Modelling 174 (2004) 175–189

178 Victoria Transport Policy Institute (2009), Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis II – Waste

Disposal, www.vtpi.org/tca/tca0516.pdf 179 Viqi Wagner (2009), Recycling, Christine Nasso, Publisher, Elizabeth Des Chenes, Managing

Editor, © 2009 Greenhaven Press, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning 180 W. Reid Lea (1996), Plastic incineration versus recycling: a comparison of energy and landfill

cost savings, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of New Orleans, Engineering Building 810, New Orleans LA 70148, USA, Journal of Hazardous Materials 47 (1996) 295-302

181 Washington State Department of Ecology (2007), Electronic Product Recycling Program, Final

Cost Benefit and Least Burdensome Analysis for Amendments to Chapter 173-900 WAC and Chapter 173-303 WAC, Prepared for Ecology’s Solid Waste and Financial Assistance Program, Publication: 07-07-040

182 Waste Management World (2010), Fridge recycling, http://www.waste-management-

world.com/index/display/article-display/308170/articles/waste-management-world/volume-8/issue-5/recycling-special/fridge-recycling.html

183 Waste Online (2005), Electrical and electronic equipment recycling information sheet,

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/21130258/resources/InformationSheets/ElectricalElectronic.htm 184 Waste Online (2005), Metals - aluminium and steel recycling,

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/21130258/resources/InformationSheets/metals.htm

http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/recycling/electron/

http://www.epa.gov/hg/spills/

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/geninfo/gwps.html

http://www.vtpi.org/tca/tca0516.pdf

http://www.waste-management-world.com/index/display/article-display/308170/articles/waste-management-world/volume-8/issue-5/recycling-special/fridge-recycling.html



http://dl.dropbox.com/u/21130258/resources/InformationSheets/ElectricalElectronic.htm

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/21130258/resources/InformationSheets/metals.htm


185 Waste Online (2006), Paper recycling information sheet,

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/21130258/resources/InformationSheets/paper.htm 186 Waste Online (2006), Plastics recycling information sheet,

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/21130258/resources/informationsheets/plastics.htm 187 Witoon Apisitpuvakul, Pornpote Piumsomboon, Daniel J. Watts and Woranut Koetsinchai

(2008), LCA of spent fluorescent lamps in Thailand at various rates of recycling, Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 1046 – 1061

188 Zdena Zsigraiova, GilbertoTavares, ViriatoSemiao and Maria de Graca Carvalho (2009),

Integrated waste-to-energy conversion and waste transportation within island communities, Energy 34 (2009) 623–635

189 Zoe Florence and Trevor J. Price (2005), Domestic-fridge recycling in Wales: mountains or

mole hills?, Applied Energy 80 (2005) 125–140 190 Γεώργιος Γκαϊντατζής, Κομνηνός Αγγελάκογλου και Δέσποινα Ακτσόγλου (2009), Ηλεκτρονικά

Απόβλητα – Περιβαλλοντικά Προβλήματα και Υφιστάμενη Διαχείριση, Τμήμα Μηχανικών Παραγωγής και Διοίκησης,Δημοκρίτειο Πανεπιστήμιο Θράκης, Ξάνθη 67100

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/21130258/resources/InformationSheets/paper.htm

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/21130258/resources/informationsheets/plastics.htm

Documents

Identification of Constraints and Obstacles · LIFE+ Environment Policy and Governance ... 1 INTRODUCTION 10 2 SCOPE –METHODOLOGY 11 2.1 Geographical scope 12 2.2 Time 12 2.3 Functional