Collection, Sorting, & Recycling: Collaborative Forums ...
Transcript of Collection, Sorting, & Recycling: Collaborative Forums ...
Plastic ZERO - Public Private Collaborations for Avoiding Plastic as a Waste
City of Copenhagen | City of Malmö | City of Hamburg | SIA Liepajas RAS Tampere Regional Solid Waste Management Ltd. | I/S Amager Ressourcecenter | Aalborg University LIFE10 ENV/DK/098 - with the contribution of the LIFE financial instrument of the European Union
1
Collection, Sorting, & Recycling:
Collaborative Forums & Demo-
Projects
2
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ........................................................................................ 3
1.1 Description of Action 3.2 & 3.3 ................................................................. 3
2 Overall Conclusions on Collaborative Forums and Demo-Projects ............... 6
3 Collaborative Forums for Collection, Sorting & Recycling of Plastic Waste .... 8
3.1 Local Liepaja .......................................................................................... 8
3.2 Drop-off Site Collection of Selected Plastic Waste ...................................... 10
3.3 Local Forum on Recycling of Plastics in Copenhagen .................................. 11
3.4 Collection of Waste Plastic from the Construction Sector ............................ 13
3.5 Collection, Reuse and Recycling of Clothes ............................................... 14
3.6 Reducing Plastic in Industrial Waste for Incineration .................................. 16
3.7 Recyclability of Packaging ...................................................................... 18
3.8 Recycling of Used Beverage Cartons ........................................................ 19
4 Demo-Projects for Sorting, Collection and Recycling ............................... 21
4.1 Rigid Plastic Collection at Recycling Stations ............................................. 21
4.2 Renescience ......................................................................................... 23
4.3 Waste plastics from residential districts and municipal centres .................... 25
4.4 Increased Collection Rate of Plastic at Municipal Institutions ....................... 27
4.5 Citizens Willingness to Separate Plastic Waste .......................................... 30
4.6 Kerbside Collection of Rigid Plastic Waste ................................................. 32
4.7 Flexible Plastic Waste when Moving into New Buildings .............................. 35
4.8 Recycling of used beverage carton .......................................................... 36
4.9 Plastic Waste Collection and Sorting for New Constructions ........................ 38
4.10 Plastics amount, Quality and Recycling Opportunities in Mixed Waste ....... 39
5 Annex I: About Plastic Zero ................................................................. 42
6 Annex II: Monitoring templates ........................................................... 43
30 August 2014
Done by Martin Tilsted 25 August 2014
Quality assured by Mathias Vang Vestergaard 29 August 2014
Approved by Mette Skovgaard 30 August 2014
3
1 INTRODUCTION
The main purpose of this report is to present the “Report on practical initiatives for
plastic waste collection and sorting”1.
This report presents the main findings and learning gained from forums and demo-
projects on sorting and collection of plastic waste. The initiatives span from small
local initiatives to municipal waste management scheme pilots.
During the project, a total of 56 enterprises have been involved in forums and
demo-projects across different value chains.
1.1 DESCRIPTION OF ACTION 3.2 & 3.3
1.1.1 Collaborative Forums for Collection & Sorting of Plastic Waste (3.2) Following the same principles as action 2.2, collaborative forums have been
established between stakeholders across the whole value chain of plastics. Expert
advisors on collection, sorting and recycling technologies and waste management
have been used as the primary sources of knowledge and to gain insights on
current best practice, as well as for identifying opportunities for new waste
management schemes. Other relevant stakeholders from the value chain have
likewise been invited to participate in the forums.
This include; plastic manufacturers, product manufacturers, plastic collectors and
re-processors. Each forum has been facilitated by a Plastic Zero partner, who also
secured networking with relevant experts and consultants. Table 2 presents an
overview of the forums established under action 3.2.
TABLE 1: OVERVIEW OF COLLABORATIVE FORUMS FOR COLLECTION & SORTING
No. Name Short Description Responsible
1 Local Liepaja In this forum Liepajas RAS cooperated with a number of Latvian waste collectors, plastic waste management companies and municipal organisations in order to investigate the possibilities for setting up tests on plastic waste collection. The forum resulted in the setup of demo-projects 3 and 4.
Liepajas RAS
2 Drop-off Site Collection of Selected Plastic Waste
In this forum Tampere Regional Solid Waste Ltd. collaborated with a supplier of logistical equipment, a plastic recycler and the Producer Responsibility Organisation in Finland in order to investigate possible ways of enhancing citizen motivation for source separation. The forum resulted in the establishment of demo-project 5, where drop-off points for waste plastics were assessed.
Tampere RSWM Ltd.
3 Local Forum on Recycling of Plastics in Copenhagen
In this forum the City of Copenhagen collaborated with different waste collectors and two non-profit social housing associations in order to implement a new residential waste management scheme, focusing on collection of rigid plastics. The forum resulted in the establishment of demo-projects 1, 6 and 7.
City of Copenhagen
4 Collection of Waste Plastic from the Construction Sector
City of Copenhagen led a forum in collaboration with a waste collector and two construction material retailers as experts. The objective was to gain insights on the types and volumes of plastic waste at construction sites. The forum resulted in demo-project 9.
City of Copenhagen
5 Collection, Reuse and Recycling of Synthetic Fibre from Clothing
This forum aimed at presenting a new concept (system) for collecting and recycling post-consumer textiles in Copenhagen. The forum participants included business associations, humanitarian organisations, local authorities and commercial partners, for which a business model was
City of Copenhagen
1 Deliverable no. 33.
4
No. Name Short Description Responsible
created for each of them as part of the forum.
6 Reducing Plastic in Industrial Waste for Incineration
Prior to initiating the forum, a survey took place at Amager Resource Centre to identify main sources of plastic in the waste stream going to incineration. This included checking the content of plastic in a number of truckloads of waste and interviewing waste producers and enterprises about their sorting practices. Both initiatives helped identifying barriers for source separation and thus what the forum-meetings should focus on. Main participants in the forum were local authorities, enterprises and waste operators.
ARC
7 Recyclability of Packaging
The forum aimed at identifying innovative means of increasing recyclability of packaging. Participants included City of Copenhagen, a large dairy company, two retail stores and a plastic waste re-processor. Discussions focused on barriers for making packaging more suitable for recycling. An easy-to-read guideline was developed to aid designers and procurers in developing and choosing more recyclable plastic packaging products in the future.
City of Copenhagen
8 Recycling of Used Beverage Cartons
This forum initiated a discussion on how different beverage cartons can be recycled. Several meetings were held between February 2012 and April 2014 to discuss recycling technologies, waste amounts and economy. A visit to Fiskeby Board was conducted in November 2012.
City of Copenhagen
1.1.2 Demo-Projects for Collection, Sorting & Recycling of Plastic Waste (3.3) Ten demo-projects (pilots) have been established as part of the identification of
effective approaches for plastic waste collection, sorting and recycling.
Most of these pilots had base in the collaborative forums thus focusing on consumer
sorting behaviour, waste separation technologies and local collection schemes. If
possible, experiences from these demo-projects were afterwards taken into further
consideration in how to adjust the individual waste management schemes. Table 2
present an overview of the demo-projects in action 3.3
TABLE 2. OVERVIEW OF DEMO-PROJECTS FOR COLLECTION, SORTING & RECYCLING
No. Name Short description Responsible
1 Rigid Plastic Collection at Recycling Stations
A new sorting fraction for rigid plastic was tested at five recycling stations. All rigid plastic items, including rigid PVC, were collected in the same container for the convenience of the users. The test confirmed that the co-mingled collection led to an increased amount of
waste plastic for recycling. As a consequence the new collection scheme has been implemented at all eight recycling stations in the Copenhagen area.
ARC
2 Renescience The pilot aimed at testing the REnescience facility located at ARC on Amager. REnescience is a technology for treatment of residual/mixed waste which it does by separating organic waste from the waste stream. The organic part is used as bio fuel and the rejects (solid recyclables such as glass, metals and plastics) can be recycled.
ARC
3 Plastic Waste From Residential Districts and Municipal Centres
The pilot aimed at creating awareness about waste sorting and recycling, as well as investigating people’s willingness to sort and separate their waste. Four ‘visiting containers’ were located temporarily at different sites in Liepaja and then moved to a new location. The containers got a lot of attention from the citizens and today Liepajas RAS uses them for exhibitions and rents them out for other different
Liepajas RAS
5
No. Name Short description Responsible
purposes.
4 Increased Collection Rate of Plastic at Municipal Institutions
This pilot was initiated for creating awareness about sorting at municipal institutions. Liepajas RAS distributed indoor sorting bins and used the opportunity to educate especially children in sorting practices. The success of the test was evaluated by interviews and by analysing samples of the collected plastic waste.
Liepajas RAS
5 Citizens Willingness to Separate Plastic Waste
This test was initiated on behalf of the Producer Responsibility Organisation in Finland. The purpose was to investigate citizens’ willingness to separate waste at local collection points in Tampere. During the test post-consumer plastics were collected at 8 collection points. Subsequently, 494 interviews of citizens were conducted to better understand the needs and values of the users of the collection points.
Tampere RSWM Ltd.
6 Copenhagen Collection of Rigid Plastic
The new collection scheme was fully implemented in Copenhagen in March 2014. Data on collection shows a More rigid plastic is being collected than expected and of reasonable quality too. In city districts where the scheme has been in place for a year or more, around 2.2 kg of plastic waste per
household is collected.
City of Copenhagen
7 Flexible Plastic Waste when Moving in to New Buildings
The demo-project aimed at investigating the amounts and collection possibilities in setting up plastic containers near new buildings where people are moving in. The scheme is currently being finalised before a permanent implementation in Copenhagen is possible.
City of Copenhagen
8 Recycling of Used Beverage Cartons
A pilot initiated in October 2013 aimed at clarifying the possibilities for a co-collection system for milk cartons and pizza boxes. Tetra Pak has made an agreement with Fiskeby Board to aiming at recycling 75% of the plastic from milk cartons in 2018. A beverage carton consists of 20% plastic.
City of Copenhagen
9 Plastic Waste Collection and Sorting for New Constructions
Based on Forum 4 a demo-project at a construction site was set up for assessing the plastic waste potential, as well as the opportunities and barriers for increasing the recycling of the waste plastic.
City of Copenhagen
10 Plastics Amount in the Mixed Waste Received for Landfill
In this pilot mixed plastic waste from Liepaja’s rural and urban districts was collected, sorted and weighed. The aim of the test was to gain knowledge on the actual amount of plastic waste in the waste stream. The result was an analysis of six waste loads and an estimation of the average amount of plastic in these, as well as the composition of plastic types and possibilities for recycling.
Liepajas RAS
6
2 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS ON COLLABORATIVE FORUMS AND
DEMO-PROJECTS
Successes when setting up collaborative forums and demo-projects for collection,
sorting and recycling of plastic waste
It is considered a success that a high number of demo-projects were
initiated based on the forums. Different approaches have been applied for
testing possibilities of improving collection, sorting and recycling of plastic
waste, including new waste management systems, co-collection of waste
streams, application of innovative technologies and collection of knowledge
about user habits.
In several cases it has been possible to adjust an existing waste
management scheme based on data and findings from pilots. Data collection
has played an important role in decision-making, when a demonstration of a
possible waste management scheme was evaluated.
Demo-projects were developed in generic and scalable manner, which made
the results implementable in full-scale and transferable to other regions.
The forums helped facilitate communication between stakeholders from
different value chains. New networks have been created that, by the
partners’ own estimations, will continue to play an important role in the
future.
The forums and demo-projects succeeded in engaging a varied group of
stakeholders with different and sometimes conflicting interests met in
forums and discussed possible ways of decreasing environmental impacts.
E.g. humanitarian organisations and the textile industry.
Awareness about recycling and sustainable waste management has been
created through communication with citizens, as well as public and private
enterprises. Data was collected about user behaviour and habits, which will
be used in future projects.
The demo-projects have served as inspiration for many new waste
management schemes in the partner cities. In Copenhagen, rigid plastic is
now sorted at the recycling stations together with PVC, since this increased
the total amount of collected plastic waste. In Liepaja the sorting bins at
municipal institutions are now a permanent scheme, for which the local
authorities now purchase and distribute sorting bins.
The majority of stakeholders involved in forums have shown interest in
continuing the collaboration so they do not miss out on innovations or
developments that might affect them later on. Information and knowledge
sharing are both excellent drivers for creating new networks with
stakeholders.
Barriers for setting up forums and demo-projects on collection, sorting and
recycling of plastic waste
When setting up demo-projects one of the most challenging aspects has
been to make the pilots measurable and comparable. More emphasis could
have been put into planning a specific strategy for pilots and ensuring that
the results were documented thoroughly. Unfortunately, this has led to the
establishment of pilots with uncertain and intangible results, which have
complicated the transfer of experiences to the roadmap.
7
An important prerequisite for successful demo-projects is to have the
necessary skills and expertise in scientific studies. The following three steps
should have been taken more into account: 1) Setting a baseline, 2)
measuring the effect and documenting results and 3) review of results.
Some forums experienced conflicting interests between forum members
which obstructed the setup of a pilot. E.g. a textile collection pilot was
hindered because stakeholders from the humanitarian organisations and
textile industry could not reach common ground.
The case shows how two worthy causes (charity and recycling) can collide,
because of uncertainty about losing market shares or fear of compromising
the economical basis for the organisation.
It was challenging to keep participants’ motivation high throughout the
process. In some cases demo-projects have been planned and agreed upon
but failed when it came to the actual delivery.
In the most successful forums a formal letter of intent was signed, which
helped ensure that agreements were kept.
Monitoring reports were difficult to fill out because participants were
uncertain about the individual topics and because the indicators sometimes
were unsuited for the pilot.
8
3 COLLABORATIVE FORUMS FOR COLLECTION, SORTING &
RECYCLING OF PLASTIC WASTE
This chapter presents the final progress notes illustrating the outcomes of
collaborative forums for collection, sorting and recycling of plastic waste.
3.1 LOCAL LIEPAJA
Forum no. 1
Lead: Liepajas RAS
Target Waste & Type (s) of forum
PET bottles, rigid plastics (HDPE and PP shampoo and detergent packaging), PE
bags.
Description
In this forum Liepajas RAS cooperated with a number of Latvian waste collectors
(Eko Kurzemes, Nordia Ltd., Viduskurzemes AAO, Zaļā josta), plastic waste
management companies (Green Dot of Latvia, Recolat Ltd.) and municipal
organisations (Aizpute,Liepaja, Durbe, Grobina, Nica, Pavilosta, Priekule, Rucava,
Vainode) in order to investigate the possibility of setting up pilots for collecting
plastic waste.
The forum successfully managed to setup demo-project no. 3 (Plastic Waste from
Residential Districts and Municipal Institutions) and 4 (Increased Collection of
Plastic at Municipal Institutions).
LRAS also mapped peoples’ habits during the demo-project. A questionnaire about
prevention and reuse habits around packaging was made on 60 respondents -
mainly students and people working in public institutions. One of the main findings
was the effect motivated leaders in the individual institutions had on the recycling
habits. Where managers were engaged in the waste collection and sorting, the
collection rates were higher and quality better. The findings from the interviews
were summarised on a poster and presented at the BEACON/ISWA conference in
June 2014. See also Figure 1.
FIGURE 1: POSTER PRESENTED AT THE BEACON/ISWA CONFERENCE IN JUNE 2014
9
Success & Barriers
Demo-project 3: Visiting Containers
Several meetings with representatives of municipalities were held where the plan
for the scheme was made and possible locations for placing the containers were
discussed. Finally, the quality and types of materials that the Visiting Containers
should accept were discussed and evaluated.
Posters and messages about the new container system were distributed across
different platforms, including municipal websites and on posters in public spaces.
Liepajas RAS found that manned stations were the best way to ensure a proper
collection of plastic waste.
The content of each container was evaluated i.e. the quality of the waste was
assessed and the volume measured (m3).
FIGURE 2: THE”VISITING CONTAINER”. PHOTO Z. SIKSNA
Demo-project 4: Municipal Waste Bins
The second pilot aimed at educating school children in waste separation and
thereby incorporating a recycling focused mindset from an early age. Liepajas RAS
procured a set of bins for the different public institutions and instructed the
employee’s on how to separate waste. Afterwards, a questionnaire was sent to
schools, kindergartens and other municipal institutions participating in the test to
collect feed-back information from the users of the new scheme.
The questionnaire showed that people
above the age of 30 are environmentally
conscientious, as 37% of them are
willing to walk longer distances to the
bins. Amongst the same group of
people, 42% of the respondents
answered that the establishment of the
bins has encouraged them to start
sorting waste at home.
Environmental aspects of products play
a lesser role for the younger group.
85% of young Latvians responded that
they choose products mostly based on
price and not eco-friendliness or quality.
THE THREE WASTE BINS IN CITY OF
LIEPAJA. PHOTO A. SVAGERE
In February 2014 representatives of the different municipal institutions and waste
collectors were invited to an evaluation meeting, to discuss the learning from the
first phase of implementing phase the new separation bins. The representatives
were here given the chance to share thoughts on pros and cons for the new bin
system and how Liepajas RAS might improve their collection scheme.
10
One of the suggested adjustments that LRAS received from the institutions was to
add a smaller bin for residual waste next to the larger bins. It was their experience
that this prevented the kindergarten children from contaminating the other bins.
Potential Eco-innovation
Given the fact that waste sorting is a relatively new phenomenon in Latvia this
forum constitute an innovative approach, as it aims at facilitating collaboration
between stakeholders across the whole value chain in Latvia in a step forward.
Organizational Impact
The forum itself does not imply any organisational changes, though contacts have
been strengthened across the plastic value chain. The forum was the initial point for
two pilots that each resulted in changes to the Latvian waste system.
The municipal institutions, where the sets of bins were placed, are continuously
consulted by LRAS and have been encouraged to make contact to waste collection
companies for promoting the waste sorting equipment i.e. the indoor bins and
outdoor containers.
Similarly, rural municipalities that have been visited by Visiting Containers have
been encouraged to contact their waste collection companies in order to ensure an
implementation of similar containers for recyclable waste fractions.
Market & Business Opportunities
As the collected amount of plastic is increasing, Liepajas RAS is able to resell the
recyclables to Latvian re-processors. Currently the prices have fallen to a point,
where it is more cost-effective to collect larger amounts of plastics, bale and store
them, and then ship them when either the price goes up or reach an amount that is
economically viable.
3.2 DROP-OFF SITE COLLECTION OF SELECTED PLASTIC WASTE
Forum no. 2
Lead: Tampere RSWM Ltd.
Target Waste & Type (s) of forum
Rigid and soft packaging plastic
Description
In this forum Tampere Regional Solid Waste Ltd. collaborated with a supplier of
logistical equipment (Hämeen kuljetus), a plastic recycler (Muovix) and the
producer responsibility organisation in Finland (Suomen Uusiomuovi). The forum
held several meetings where the participants discussed practical issues related to
setting up a test, as well as technical challenges for the current sorting facilities in
Finland.
The forum initiated the setup of demo-project no. 5.
Success & Barriers
The forum was the starting point for most of the planning leading to demo-project
no. 5. At the first meeting the purpose and targets were discussed, as well as
concerns regarding hygienic and microbiological issues. Discussions were also held
regarding seasonal variations and weather conditions that could affect the
collection. The forum included various experts and stakeholders who made it
possible to assess the needed number of collection points and equipment.
The pilot showed that the volume of plastic packaging coming from households to
the collection points were larger than expected. One of the main barriers for
increasing recycling in Tampere was found to be the lack of suitable baling facilities
11
for plastic waste in the region. By compressing the waste plastic significant
reductions in the transportation costs could be achieved.
A new legislation for extended producer responsibility on plastic packaging in
Finland is expected to be a vital driver for even more collection and recycling in the
future. Manufactures will then have the responsibility to take care of their own
plastic waste. Hopefully, this will also encourage more source separation and
increase the amounts of plastic waste diverted from landfill.
Potential Eco-innovation
Currently there are poor recycling possibilities for mixed plastic waste in Finland.
Based on the analysed plastic waste, collected during the pilots, it is likely that the
collection scheme will continue but only for rigid plastics.
Organizational Impact
Depending on whether a kerbside collection scheme or a different scheme is
selected for collecting rigid plastics, there will be organisational consequences in the
whole value chain of waste plastic, including the transportation companies and local
authorities.
Addressing the technological challenges will also be an important aspect in making
the waste management system as economically feasible as possible.
Market & Business Opportunities
The results from the drop-off site collection inspired Tampere RSWM to implement
plastic collection (small scale) at one of its manned eco-centres. If appropriate
technologies (e.g. baling) becomes available in the Tampere region it will increase
the opportunity to expand collection of plastic recyclables.
3.3 LOCAL FORUM ON RECYCLING OF PLASTICS IN COPENHAGEN
Forum no. 3
Lead: City of Copenhagen
Target Waste & Type (s) of forum
Various residual plastic wastes
Description
The purpose of this forum was to identify various ways of increasing the amount of
plastic collected from households in Copenhagen. This was done in cooperation with
waste companies (M. Larsen and City Renovation), housing associations (Lejerbo
and KAB) and waste distributors (CPH Waste). The forum supported a series of
demo-projects on new collection methods in Copenhagen and facilitated a
constructive dialogue between key stakeholders.
The supported demo-projects in this forum were demo-projects 1 (Rigid Plastic
Collection at Recycling Stations), 6 (Copenhagen Collection of Rigid Plastic) and 7
(Flexible Plastic Waste when Moving into New Buildings).
12
FIGURE 3: 1 TONNE OF NON-BALED COLLECTED PLASTIC WASTE AT ARC
Success & Barriers
The forum succeeded in establishing three demo-projects. Based on the findings of
the three pilots it was decided to implement a permanent collection of rigid plastics
at the recycling stations as well as using the collected plastics as a test bed for
investigating the actual performance of sorting facilities around Europe.
It is currently still being considered whether the City of Copenhagen should
implement a service for the collection of flexible plastics.
Another activity in the forum concerned the investigation of sorting technologies in
Denmark. Here two sorting facilities were visited.
The forum served as the starting point for discussions related to collection and
sorting in Copenhagen, which ensured that both varied perceptions and relevant
expertise was taken into account.
Potential Eco-innovation
Besides gaining new knowledge on sorting capabilities around Europe, all three
pilots were based on known technologies and approaches.
Collection of waste plastics from households has not previously been done in the
City of Copenhagen.
The city has set ambitious targets for the collection of plastics, and is therefore
motivated to try new and innovative collection methods.
So far the results have been 40tons of rigid plastic collected each month for
recycling, which would otherwise have been incinerated for energy recovery.
Organizational Impact
The forum itself did not result in any organisational changes. As described in the
respective sections the three demo-projects showed different potential, which led to
direct implementations of the tested collection schemes in the case of demo-project
1 and 6.
Market & Business Opportunities
With the full roll-out of the different sorting schemes it is now possible for 650.000
inhabitants in the Copenhagen area to sort out rigid plastics. 400.000 of these have
containers placed at their residents (apartment buildings), whereas the remaining
(houses) have access to recycling stations with rigid plastic sorting.
13
3.4 COLLECTION OF WASTE PLASTIC FROM THE CONSTRUCTION SECTOR
Forum no. 4
Lead: City of Copenhagen
Target Waste & Type (s) of forum
Mixed waste plastics from the construction sector e.g. rigid plastics including PVC,
flexible plastics etc.
Description
Previous investigations showed that large amounts of plastic waste are generated in
the construction sector. In 2012 the City of Copenhagen initiated a forum in
collaboration with a waste collector (HCS A/S). The objective was to discuss the
composition of construction waste and the establishment of a collection pilot that
could provide real data on the amounts and quality of the plastic waste.
The forum also discussed possible ways of increasing the recycling rate; fulfil all
legal requirements, easy-to-handle solutions at the construction site and how to
ensure the highest possible sales price at the recycling market.
The forum resulted in the setup of Demo-project no.10 at a construction site.
Interviews were also conducted with two construction markets (Silvan and Stark),
one supplying mainly private consumers and the other aimed at craftsmen and
professional builders.
Success & Barriers
The interviews resulted in the identification and mapping of a series of plastic
materials that are common on construction sites; some being part of the
construction itself and others in the form of tools. See table 4.
TABLE 3: IDENTIFIED PLASTIC WASTE PRODUCTS FROM CONSTRUCTION SITES. Insulation Windows & Doors
EPS Insulation shells
Compartment insulation
Whole doors Whole windows
Gutters etc. Water supply installations
PVC gutters & downspouts
Fascines
Drain pipes Rainwater tanks &
barrels
PEX pipes Water tanks
Waste Pipes HVAC
Indoor PVC waste pipes
Outdoor sewer pipes & wells
Under floor heating pipes
Geothermal heating pipes
Electrical component & cables etc. Floors
Cables & Wires Lamps & misc.
components
Cable ducts Cable conduits
Synthetic carpets & mats (fibre bonded)
Polymer coated floors
Vinyl
Kitchen & Bathroom Roofs
Whole components Drawers
Doors Composite boards
& sheets
Under roof w/w.o. PVC
Corrugated polymer sheets
Transparent boards for terraces (PVC or PC)
Tools Packaging
Tarpaulin Misc. Polishing
tools Bricklayer buckets Wedges & Guide
blocks
Brushes & Sponges Toolkits & Boxes Metal tools with
polymer handles Signs
Transparent films Coloured films Big bags
Misc. Bags Buckets, canisters
etc.
Other aspects were also discussed in the forum related to the challenges of
implementing new sorting practices at construction sites.
First, it is a convenience challenge for the staff at construction sites to sort plastic
waste separately, because it is relatively lightweight and a small amount of the
waste stream compared to the total amount generated at a construction site. This
14
challenges the engagement and motivation of the construction company and its
staff.
Another challenge is that waste collection is in an area with significant competition.
If one waste collector is too expensive or insists on collecting plastic waste, the
construction company might choose another company to keep costs down.
Collected plastics at construction sites are not baled and are therefore costly to
transport. In order to bale the collected plastic on site the entrepreneur needs to
rent a baler, which will drive up the costs and take up space.
It is also a challenge that authorities (in Denmark) traditionally have directed
plastic waste to incineration, which clearly also has affected the perception and
practice by the workers at construction sites today.
Potential Eco-innovation
There are no obvious innovations related to this forum. However, there has been
except the collected new knowledge on a material waste stream out of the normal
focus, with a great potential to increase the recycling operations in the future.
Organizational Impact
A new sorting scheme would require much more emphasis on communicating the
benefits of sorting. As for now these organisational changes are unlikely as long as
there are no clear legal requirements or economical drivers for sorting plastic waste
in the construction and demolition sector. With the right drivers a huge potential
might be opened up.
Market & Business Opportunities
As plastic waste from the construction and demolition sector accounts for around
20% of the total European plastic consumption, it could be a large provider of
future resources for the recycled plastic market in Europe.
Plastic sorting is not prioritised at construction sites because it is time-consuming
and costly. If a new, easy and cost-effective scheme could be developed; there
would certainly be a market for it.
3.5 COLLECTION, REUSE AND RECYCLING OF CLOTHES
Forum no. 5
Lead: City of Copenhagen
Target Waste & Type (s) of forum
Synthetic fibres (e.g. polyester)
Description
The forum was established in February 2013 and was finalised with a forum
meeting in September 2013. As part of the forum three meetings were held and
two site visits were conducted in order to gain insights on current textile recycling
opportunities and technologies.
The forum focused on investigating ways of ensuring more textiles are collected,
reused or recycled instead of being incinerated. Participants in the forum included
representatives from the City of Copenhagen, Force Technology, Copenhagen
Resource Institute, Red Cross, Danish Fashion Institute and I:CO.
15
It is estimated that about 50% of the
material in textile waste consist of
different kinds of synthetic fibres. In
Denmark around 45% of the imported
textiles are reused or recycled, while
55% is incinerated.
A survey by FAO/ICAC (2011) on total
world fibre consumption in the apparel
industry found that synthetic fibres have
increased from 40% to 60% of total
world consumption in the last 18 years
and still rising.
As part of the forum, a system model for returning textiles in Copenhagen was
discussed. It was decided to split the model into four business models, one for each
of the involved actors (business associations, humanitarian organizations,
municipalities and commercial partners).
With a shared system it was estimated that the textile collection could increase
from 45% to 65% of the total potential.
Success & Barriers
The forum discussions revealed a common understanding for the need for recycling
textiles shared by both producers and consumers in Denmark. One of the drivers of
change is that synthetic fibres by many are considered a crucial step in creating a
more sustainable textile industry by the majority of stakeholders.
It is crucial to find an effective collection procedure, to make sure the rising levels
of synthetic fibres are collected and recycled in the best way possible, in the future.
It has generally been unclear how pure a quality it is possible to extract from
textiles. A visit at SOEX (a textile recycling facility) in Berlin was carried out in
order to investigate the quality of synthetic fibres extracted from textiles. According
to SOEX, it is currently not possible to extract completely pure fibres as it is very
complicated to separate synthetic fibres from other materials e.g. cotton.
One of the greatest challenges for the forum was to make all stakeholders work for
the same cause. Today, humanitarian organisations have their own individual
collection schemes in Denmark, which means that a new and shared collection
scheme could lead to fewer textiles for them. During the creation of a business
model for the collection scheme, several humanitarian organisations have been
invited to corporate, but only Red Cross showed an interest in the project.
Potential Eco-innovation
A more transparent business model, involving the whole value chain within the
collection and sorting of clothes for reuse and recycling, could provide big
innovation possibilities i.e. designing textiles within a closed loop system.
During the forum discussions it was also considered whether more specialised
second hand stores, could provide a real alternative for people, instead of
purchasing new clothing.
Organizational Impact
The four business models imply different organisational changes necessary for the
shared collection system.
Municipalities
As the rules are today in the city of Copenhagen, any collector is free to set up a
collection container of textiles on a private property. The new collection scheme
suggests that all collected textiles end up at a single location, it might be necessary
changing legislation to gain more control about the containers around the city and
maybe also set up criteria for the owners.
16
Humanitarian Organisations
These organisations will have to adjust to a whole new system. Today their system
for collecting textiles is through own containers in local shops around the city. The
textiles which are not sold in the shop, are shipped or sold to European sorting
facilities, with the purpose of being sorted and bundled. Depending on the quality
of, the textiles are either sold to second hand shops or shipped as donations to
developing countries.
As part of a new collection scheme humanitarian organisations would still have the
opportunity to collect textiles locally. From the local shop, the clothing would
instead be shipped to a sorting facility (e.g. SOEX in Germany) from where it would
be sorted for further reprocessing. Depending on the quantity and quality of the
input textile delivered by the individual organisation a similar amount of high
quality clothing or textiles would then be given back to the organisation. In this way
an equal and fair distribution of the high quality textiles is shared between all
stakeholders.
Market & Business Opportunities
As to the question of sorting and reusing more textiles, it is estimated that
somewhere between 1/3 and 2/3 of what is currently incinerated, could be either
reused or recycled under the right circumstances.
A collection system, which includes the Danish fashion industry, the City of
Copenhagen and humanitarian organisations could show the way for a lot of other
stakeholders in Europe serving as an example of how value can be shared across all
members of the value chain.
3.6 REDUCING PLASTIC IN INDUSTRIAL WASTE FOR INCINERATION
Forum no. 6
Lead: IS Amager Resource Center (ARC)
Target Waste & Type (s) of forum
Plastic films, rigid plastics from private enterprises
Description
This forum was initiated in the spring of 2012 and finalised with a workshop in the
spring of 2013.
In this forum ARC did a spot check survey of truck loads delivering waste for
incineration. Subsequently, interviews with the waste collectors were conducted
and ARC facilitated a workshop with relevant partners that could affect the subject
of the forum. The partners consisted of representatives from the City of
Copenhagen and three other municipalities (Frederiksberg, Hvidovre and Taarnby),
producers of industrial waste (Københavns Lufthavne, Lundbeck A/S and Dagrofa
A/S) and waste operators (Marius Pedersen, HCS A/S, Henrik Tofteng and M.
Larsen). Focus was on improving source separation of recyclable plastics and
thereby avoiding that these resources end up as incineration input.
In the waste stream going to incineration the plastic content mostly consist of
mixed plastics; rigid and flexible. In some cases there are considerable amounts of
homogenous plastics that are feasible for source separation; mostly film of
transparent plastic (LDPE), which is a valuable material. See Figure 4.
In other cases there are several different types of plastic which have varied levels
of recyclability. This includes plastic that is contaminated with organic waste or the
like.
A small survey was set up at Amager Resource Center (ARC) to find extra sources
of plastic in industrial waste sent to incineration. By checking the content of plastic
17
in a number of truckloads of waste, waste producers/enterprises, with either no or
bad source separation of waste plastic, were identified. These enterprises and their
waste operators were interviewed about their collection and sorting schemes.
Furthermore, they were invited to a workshop where results from the survey, best
practice cases and viable solutions to reduce the amounts of plastic, in the waste
sent for incineration, were presented and discussed.
FIGURE 4: LARGE AMOUNTS OF PLASTIC FILM (LDPE) WAS FOUND IN THE TRUCK LOADS
SENT FOR INCINERATION.
Spot checks on waste for incineration are standard at ARC. As a result of these
findings ARC has decided to strengthen its focus by checking for recyclable waste
plastic in the future.
It is being considered whether to continue the forum for dialogue and knowledge
sharing with enterprises, as it is acknowledged that better communication with
these can have a strong effect through the value chain of recyclable plastic.
Success & Barriers
One of the successes of this forum has been the increased awareness of source
separation of plastic among waste producers and management operators.
Communication with these operators is a vital part of reaching the waste producers
and for being able to give advice on improvements of sorting and separation.
Knowledge sharing and experiences can help overcoming real as well as assumed
barriers for plastic recycling.
The workshop indicated some important preconditions for improving sorting and
recycling of industrial plastic waste:
Producer responsibility scheme or take-back scheme for packaging
Legal requirement of sorting out plastic; a ban on incinerating plastic waste;
better communication of what is accepted for incineration a the individual
waste-to-energy plant (this differs from plant to plant, which in itself can be a
barrier for better sorting and separation)
National regulation instead of regional/local (harmonised rules in all
municipalities)
Economic instruments: To increase the fee on waste collected for incineration if
it contains plastic
Waste operators should align their services by including plastic sorting in all
their collection schemes
Labelling of plastic to enable better sorting
Giving waste collection and sorting higher priority and attention in enterprises
Best practise on how to increase plastic recycling, sharing knowledge
Better sorting manuals
Different barriers were identified throughout discussions in the forum. First, it was
emphasised that the information level when communicating with employees that
are to sort the waste is insufficient and lack updated knowledge. More (and better)
communication is needed if habits are to be improved.
18
Different economically related barriers were also identified, including that the
market in general demands a very high purity of recyclables, which is difficult to
meet as mixed waste plastics are very diverse. The origin of plastic waste is often
untraceable e.g. due to uncertainty about contact with food or chemicals. It was
also noticed that the high amount of laminated plastics lead to big challenges in the
sorting process.
Finally, given its light weight, plastic waste is very costly to collect and transport to
sorting plants and with no strict legal requirements there are no evident driver for
sorting plastic recyclables.
Potential Eco-innovation
The survey and the continued spot checks will contribute to raising awareness
among enterprises and transport operators. Establishing new networks for
strengthening the dialogue among stakeholders could enable better solutions for
source separation based on the experiences of those who produce and handle the
waste (and those who receive waste for incineration).
Organizational Impact
ARC will continue spot checks on plastic in the waste stream going to incineration.
Check results are passed on to municipal authorities (City of Copenhagen and
others). This includes improving the coordination of spot checks and reactions
towards the enterprises in collaboration with the relevant authorities, which will
ensure that all legal requirements are met regarding separation of recyclables.
Market & Business Opportunities
Larger amounts of source separated waste plastic can provide a better basis for
establishing a plastic recovery facility in Denmark. Cooperation with (and
supervision of) waste producers is an important aspect of avoiding that recyclables
are getting incinerated.
3.7 RECYCLABILITY OF PACKAGING
Forum no. 7
Lead: City of Copenhagen
Target Waste & Type(s) of forum
Primary plastics packaging
Description
The overall objective is to improve the actual recycling of plastic waste by getting
better at exploiting the plastic waste that is collected. When the amount of
reprocessed plastic increases, the supply of recycled plastic will also increase and
more goods can be manufactured using recycled plastic. The objective is further to
contribute to a more stable supply of recycled plastic of a high quality to the benefit
of manufacturers.
The Danish Government is hosting a high-level Global Green Growth Forum (3GF)
each year in October. The City of Copenhagen and the Danish Environmental
Protection Agency organised a session, Rethinking plastics, to advance discussions
on cutting edge trends. A large dairy producer (Arla Foods amba) volunteered in
entering a partnership with the City of Copenhagen on the subject of improved
plastics recycling. At the 3GF Arla Foods committed themselves to meeting three
targets on recycling of packaging.
Other participants in the collaborative forum are: Supermarket chains (COOP and
Dansk Supermarked Group), plastic waste re-processor (Aage Vestergaard Larsen
A/S), and a waste expert (Danish Technological Institute). A third supermarket
chain (Rema1000) has been informed about project progress.
19
It was agreed to develop a guideline for procurers in order to help them buy goods
that are packed in packaging that is designed for recycling.
The first meeting was held in October 2013, followed by a total of four meetings in
parallel to developing the guideline. The fifth and final meeting was held in August
2014, this time with the participation of the Danish Environmental Protection
Agency and the Danish Plastics Federation. Besides sharing insights and thoughts
on the potential of the guideline, it was decided to organise a follow-up forum
meeting in the spring of 2015 on the first findings and learning on using the
guideline.
Success & Barriers
The establishment of the collaborative forum has been a success as three of the
largest retailers have indicated an interest in either taking an active part or being
kept posted on the development. A success criterion is if the two supermarkets
agree to use the guideline in their purchasing policy.
A barrier is to establish the right balance of the guideline between adequately
targeting the most important issues in design and not being too detailed or
comprehensive for the procurers to use the guideline.
Potential Eco-innovation
The guideline has to be very simple and easy to use. The guideline itself is 4 pages,
and has an 8-page annex with technical explanation. The guideline is based on
recommendations from the UK organisations, Recoup and WRAP, and experiences
from the City of Copenhagen.
A seminar for designers and packaging manufacturers was held in June 2014 where
it became evident that several participants were not aware of how they could
design packaging for recycling. I.e. awareness rising on this issue is needed.
Organisational Impact
Two meetings were combined with site visits at Aage Vestergaard Larsen A/S
(plastic re-processor) and Dansk Affald (small scale Danish MRF) to gather
information about the recycling process.
The guideline ought to be updated on a regular basis. As the Plastic Zero website
will be updated five years after the end of the project, the City of Copenhagen has
suggested continuing the publication of any revised versions of the guideline.
Organising the revision itself goes beyond Plastic Zero and will be decided
afterwards.
Market & Business Opportunities
If the retailers can agree on using the same requirements in the procurement
plans, it will potentially reduce the manufacturers’ costs and ease the production of
packaging.
3.8 RECYCLING OF USED BEVERAGE CARTONS
Forum no. 8
Lead: City of Copenhagen
Target Waste Stream of forum
Used beverage cartons (UBC) such as milk and juice cartons. Milk cartons comprise
80% paper fibres and 20% LDPE (Low Density Polyethylene), whereas juice cartons
comprise 75% paper-fibres, 20% LDPE and 5% Aluminium (Al).
20
Description
The City of Copenhagen was approached by a packaging producer, Tetra Pak, who
would like to see post-consumer beverage cartons being recycled as they are in
other European member states.
The forum discussed various possibilities for introducing a collection and recycling
scheme in Copenhagen for UBC. Tetra Pak presented estimated amounts of UBC
put on the market and a life-cycle assessment. Together with the Danish recycled
materials broker, Danfiber, Tetra Pak produced a draft business case. A site visit to
a re-processor, Fiskeby Board AB was made too.
Other participants include: Dairy producer (Arla Foods amba), a team of lobbyists
(Public Affairs Group) and strategic communication company (Kreab Gavin
Anderson).
In total, five meetings and one site visit was conducted during the period February
2012 – May 2013. The forum activities led to the establishment of Demo-project 8.
Success & Barriers
Based on experience from Sweden, the assumption in the business case was that
25% of the UBC could be collected and that it also would lead to an increased
amount of carton of 30%. As such a total increase of 55%, a break-even would
occur.
Potential Eco-innovation
A key issue for the City of Copenhagen was not only the recycling of paper fibres
but very much the recycling of the plastic in UBCs. Thus, Tetra Pak made an
agreement with a paper/board re-processor and carton manufacturer (Fiskeby
Board) to recycle 75% of plastics from UBCs in 2018. Tetra Pak is investigating the
possibilities of turning this plastic into a new product, such as a milk crater/box.
Fiskeby Board is currently using the waste plastics for energy recovery.
Organizational Impact
The aim was to design a collection scheme that implied as few and little changes as
possible for the current system. It was decided that the best way would be to
collect UBC and pizza boxes together with the existing kerbside collection of
cardboard and carton from blocks of flats.
Market & Business Opportunities
Neither UBC nor pizza boxes are currently recycled in Denmark. Hence, there would
be a potential for increased collection and recycling.
21
4 DEMO-PROJECTS FOR SORTING, COLLECTION AND
RECYCLING This chapter presents the final progress notes and reflects the main outcomes and
products of the demo-projects (pilots) on sorting, collection and recycling of plastic
waste.
4.1 RIGID PLASTIC COLLECTION AT RECYCLING STATIONS
Demo-Project no. 1
Lead: I/S Amager Resource Center (ARC)
Target Waste stream(s) of pilot
Mixed rigid plastic including PVC, HDPE, PP, PET, PS and ABS
Description
The pilot ran between autumn 2012 and May 2013. From May 2013 the new value
stream was made permanent.
ARC administers ten large recycling stations and five small recycling stations in the
Capital Region of Denmark. In this demo-project a new sorting scheme for rigid
plastic was tested at five large recycling stations. All rigid plastic items including
rigid PVC were collected in the same container, to increase the convenience at the
recycling stations. This was done as a pilot since the majority of users are incapable
of distinguishing PVC from other rigid plastic types. Previously the fraction was split
in two containers, one for rigid PVC and one for other rigid plastics.
The fraction of mixed rigid plastic at the recycling stations is supplementary to the
collection of plastic boxes for milk and bread, which are directly reused. The
collected rigid plastic is today handled by a waste-to-recycling operator. It is
baled/compressed and sent to a sorting plant (previously in Denmark, in the future
most likely in Germany which raises a problem with the PVC part). PVC, garden
furniture and other items that could harm the further sorting of the waste plastic
should be separated manually, however due to high costs this has not been done so
far.
The test confirmed that the mixed plastic waste stream more than doubled the
amount of collected rigid plastic for recycling, compared to the previous split
collection of PVC and other rigid plastics. As a result the new scheme has now been
implemented at nine recycling stations in the greater Copenhagen area.
Amount of plastic waste collected
During the test, 30 tonnes of rigid plastic in average was collected at the five
recycling stations each month. In the first half of 2013 the amount of collected rigid
plastics (including PVC) at the same five recycling stations went up to 314 tonnes.
With the full implementation of the mixed fraction at nine recycling stations in 2013
the amount of collected rigid plastic went up from 328 tonnes in 2012 to 619
tonnes in 2013. Five of the nine large recycling stations are located within the
Municipality of Copenhagen where approx. 650.000 inhabitants are potential users
of the recycling stations. The amount of rigid plastics collected at these stations
was 314 tonnes, including 13 tonnes of PVC that was collected separately at some
of the stations until the permanent new fraction was implemented in May. This
means that approximately ½ a kg of rigid plastic was collected per person that year
at the 5 recycling stations in City of Copenhagen.
Most recent figures show that volumes have continued to increase in the first half of
2014 (197 tonnes at the five Copenhagen recycling stations and a total of 406
22
tonnes across the nine recycling stations). Assuming this trend continues 2014 will
result in a new record collection of estimated 800 tonnes of rigid plastic waste.
Quality of plastic waste collected/sorted
Out of the 314 tonnes of rigid plastic collected at the five recycling stations within
the municipality of Copenhagen. Prior to implementing the new waste collection
scheme approx. 25% of the plastic waste consisted of PVC. It has not been possible
to estimate whether this figure has changed with the new collection scheme. It is
also important to note that the collection point of the value stream at the recycling
stations is shared between small enterprises and households and the amount of
PVC maybe a little lower when only looking at the waste plastic from households.
The rigid plastic collected at recycling stations is sorted into PP, PE, PVC and other
plastics. It is estimated that 1/3 of the collected rigid plastic is recycled. The rest is
used for either RDF or is incinerated.
Success & Barriers
The total amount of collected rigid waste plastics exceeds the amount collected
when separating PVC from other rigid plastic types. It seems evident that a simple
waste stream definition makes it easier for citizens/the users to sort the waste
plastic.
This finding may also be interesting in other contexts, where simple collection
systems may have a positive impact on the overall collection scheme. However,
mixing PVC with other rigid plastics can be a barrier to further sorting. Sorting
plants in Germany will not accept rigid plastics contaminated with PVC.
Another barrier for recycling rigid waste plastic is the volume and weight. Because
waste plastic occupies more space in a container than e.g. cardboard, it is more
costly to transport the waste plastic from the recycling station to the sorting facility.
Furthermore, it is difficult to estimate whether the financial benefits from the gains
in volume outweighs the sorting requirements of the mixed plastic.
Potential Eco-innovation
By implementing the new collection scheme waste sorting becomes easier for the
user. On the other hand more effort and time must be put into the subsequent
sorting and separation of the plastic. Thus it becomes more costly.
In this way the new scheme implies a compromise between source separation and
centralised sorting.
Organizational Impact
The rigid plastic fraction replaces the former hollow body fraction, so no further
space is required. Collection of rigid plastic waste benefits in this pilot from the
already established recycling stations.
The containers for rigid plastics are emptied several times in a week.
The former fraction for hollow plastic bodies was emptied less frequently – it simply
took more time to fill the containers.
Market & Business Opportunities
The scheme is implemented at all recycling stations, thus increasing the collected
amounts of rigid plastics. Using this scheme is efficient in urban regions due to the
high volumes, but it may not be adequate in other regions.
23
4.2 RENESCIENCE
Demo-Project no. 2
Lead: I/S Amager Resource Center (ARC)
Target Waste stream(s) of pilot
All sorts of mixed plastic items: Film, packaging, bottles, pots and trays, utilities,
toys, bags, etc.
Description
Renescience is a new technology for sorting and pre-treating mixed waste, which in
this pilot was tested at ARC in small scale with the aim of separating biological
waste from the dry residuals, including plastic and metals.
The pilot was initiated in 2012, where plastics were collected and analysed.
The City of Copenhagen is considering various possibilities for recycling plastic
waste from the residual municipal waste stream. The Renescience Technology
treats the mixed residual waste (including the flexible plastic waste) in an
enzymatic process, which creates an organic fluid (bio liquid) including small
particles (< 5 mm of plastic and other materials) and a reject stream of plastic and
other dry residuals. The organic fluid/bio liquid can be used for production of
biogas. The particles, i.e. the plastic, can then be washed and prepared for
recycling.
Amount of plastic waste collected
It is estimated that 15 % of the residual waste (wet weight) input for the
REnescience process consists of waste plastics. An analysis of the plastic content in
the residual waste treated in REnescience showed that packaging material is the
largest part of the value stream.
FIGURE 5: OUTPUT COMPOSITION AFTER THE RENESCIENCE PROCESS - WET WEIGHT IN %
Quality of plastic waste collected/sorted
56%
3%
10%
1%
30%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2D without water (Riber, MSW, Model)
Other
Inert
Biodegradable
Metal
Plastic 48%
45%
1% 2% 4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
3D without water (Riber, MSW, Model)
Other
Inert
Biodegradable
Metal
Plastic
24
Recycling possibilities differ for the 3-dimensional and 2-dimensional materials. The
larger part of the separated output stream consists of 2D material, where plastic
foils and other soft plastics are a major part.
For the 3D material the recycling possibilities are comparable to source separated
waste. The 2D fraction, which is slightly polluted with textiles and other non-
plastics, has been tested for whether an agglomeration of the material could be
used as new feedstock. The preliminary results show that this type of down-cycled
plastic can be used as inner-coating for certain types of tubes, for downspouts and
other products where colour, strength and other specifications are not that
important.
Success & Barriers
In terms of sorting out plastic for recycling the REnescience technology has proven
efficient. The idea with the technology is to sort out different valuable fractions
from mixed household waste, thus eliminating the need for source separation prior
to the process. However, to increase the value of waste plastic for recycling, source
separation would often be preferable. The 2D plastic fraction from the REnescience
process can be recycled, but in a quality reflecting a down-cycling perspective. Also
the costs are still unknown.
The benefits of using the REnescience technology depend on where and how it is
going to be used. For dense urban areas with little or no excess space for
containers for source separation of dry recyclables and organic waste, REnescience
will have the best potential to increase recycling of materials.
Potential Eco-innovation
Separating plastic, metal and other recyclable materials from mixed waste is a
general problem in most countries. The relevance of REnescience might depend on
the infrastructure of the context, if there is any use for the “sludge” for recovering
bio-energy. The potential is currently unclear as a full-scale plant has yet to be
made.
Organizational Impact
Being able to sort mixed waste mechanically could alter the necessity of sorting at
source, and could potentially change the national waste system. This depends on
cost, efficiency and scale.
Market & Business Opportunities
It is a goal for the City of Copenhagen to utilise the resources bio waste more
effectively and ensure that nutrients remain in circulation. It is being currently
considered to build a full scale REnescience treatment plant; however, the decision
will depend on the possibility of using the digestate2 as a fertilizer in the agricultural
industry.
2 the digestate being the left over material after gasification of the bio liquid.
25
4.3 WASTE PLASTICS FROM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS AND MUNICIPAL CENTRES
Demo-Project no. 3
Lead: Liepajas RAS
Target Waste stream(s) of pilot
Residual waste, mainly PET bottles, shampoo, ketchup and other plastic packaging
Description
The Pilot was initiated in October 2012 and finalised in May 2014.
Currently, there is no scheme for
collecting sorted plastic waste in
Latvia. Thus, only little concrete
knowledge exists about sorting and
collection in the Liepaja region.
In this demo-project a new scheme for
enhancing awareness about plastic
recycling was initiated. Four ‘visiting
containers’ were purchased by Liepajas
RAS and placed in Liepaja. Two in the
Liepaja rural areas and two in the City
of Liepaja.
The containers were collected by
Liepajas RAS and all expenses were
covered by Liepajas RAS, which meant
that it was free to use by citizens.
Information on the containers’
placement was provided via Liepajas
RAS’ website, the City council and local
country authorities.
The collected plastic was delivered to a
plastic recycling plant in Liepaja, where
it was manually sorted and then sent
for further analysis at Nordic Plast Ltd.
and JRC Pet Baltija.
As a result of the demo-project the regional municipalities and waste collection
companies have decided to procure additional containers and place them
permanently at different locations in the cities.
Amount of plastic waste collected
It has been estimated that around
800kg of plastics has been collected
during the pilot.
A higher collection was expected prior to
the pilot, but the estimation did not take
into account that the collected plastic
was not compressed. With a compressor
it would have been possible to collect
more plastic in each truck load.
Quality of plastic waste collected/sorted
By visually inspecting the collected waste and manual sorting it was recognised that
around 50% of the collected waste consisted of PET bottles. PET bottles are
normally covered by the Latvian producer responsibility organisation (Latvijas
26
Zaļais punkts), thus the high content of PET may be connected to the fact that
there is no separate return system for PET bottles in Liepaja.
In the same inspection it was recognised that around 20% of the content consisted
of waste not intended for the plastic collection.
Success & Barriers
The main idea about having the containers ‘come and visit’ different locations in a
limited time has shown great potential in promoting recycling and increasing
people’s awareness about the pilot activities.
Secondly the visits helped Liepajas RAS in gathering knowledge on the local waste
generation in each area.
Because the containers only visited each area for a limited time, it is difficult to
estimate the long term benefits of having a container in the specific area.
Having unmanned containers has its obvious economical advantages, but it was
also recognised that this led to some contamination in the collections. Furthermore,
being unmanned, the containers are quite exposed. For this reason effort was put
into constructing the container so that unauthorised entry and relocation was
impossible. Based on these observations Liepajas RAS decided to monitor the use
of the visiting containers, which resulted in an improved quality of the sorted
waste.
One of the regional municipalities (Priekule) has signed an agreement with a waste
company about 17 new waste collection points and in the construction and
installation of a sorted waste collection square has been started. To promote more
sorting representatives of the municipalities placed labels and signs with
information on how to sort the waste appropriately. Information about sorting
possibilities was also placed at the local municipal councils and public information
desks in the centres.
One of the barriers in the test was the limited number of containers. With more
containers a wider area could have been covered, but for financial reasons a limited
number had to be used. It also turned out to be a challenge to find appropriate
locations for the containers, as free public space in Liepaja is limited.
During the pilot it was noticed that people used the visiting containers as a means
of disposing residual waste and other waste streams that they normally would have
had to pay a fee for having managed. Some municipalities are less willing to take
on the responsibility of making contracts with suppliers of waste containers.
Liepajas RAS is confident that the good results of the visiting containers eventually
will convince these municipalities to join in on the new collection scheme.
Potential Eco-innovation
As a result of the demo-project waste sorting has now been implemented in the
rural areas of the Liepaja Region.
Organizational Impact
Several municipalities have started signing new contracts with waste companies,
making it obligatory to introduce containers for sorting of glass, paper/cardboard
and PET bottles.
Market & Business Opportunities
Liepajas RAS has decided to continue using the visiting containers for public events,
waste sorting contests for schools and other public actions, as a way of promoting
recycling. The visiting containers have become so popular that Liepajas RAS today
rent them out one month at a time.
27
4.4 INCREASED COLLECTION RATE OF PLASTIC AT MUNICIPAL INSTITUTIONS
Demo-Project no. 4
Lead: Liepajas RAS
Target Waste stream(s) of pilot
PET bottles, shampoo, ketchup and other plastic packaging
Description
The Pilot ran from October 2012 until May 2014.
In 2012 source separation was introduced to public institutions in Liepaja and bins
for collecting paper, cardboard, glass, metals and plastic was rolled out. Initially
this meant that large containers were placed at each institution for each waste
streams. The initial experience was that much of the plastic waste was not
collected, as the plastic sorting mainly focused on specific plastic types such as PET.
In this demo-project Liepajas RAS implemented a new sorting-bin set, including a
bin which allowed people to sort all types of plastic waste collectively. The
hypothesis was that a mixed plastic collection would make it easier for people to
separate plastic waste from the remaining and thereby increase the overall amount
of collected waste.
157 sets of bins were placed at different
locations, mainly municipal buildings,
kindergartens and schools. Each set
consisted of three bins; one for paper
and cardboard, one for glass and one
for mixed plastic and metal.
Besides the obvious purpose of diverting
as much plastic as possible from the
residual waste stream, the test also
focused on educating the users of the
bins.
Results showed that people in general were willing to separate their waste at
source. The activeness of the users depended to a great extend on the focus
applied by the local managers at the schools, kindergartens etc. Where managers
put a lot of attention in the project the amounts increased. Similarly, if managers
showed no or less interest, the amounts decreased.
The greatest results were found in the kindergartens, where the children had no
prior experience with sorting waste. In general kindergarten children and primary
school pupils were considered the most successful recipients of the new scheme, as
they are ‘fast-learners’ and seem more aware about the environmental benefits of
waste separation. An increasing number of institutions now ask for the sorting bins
and it is hoped that this emphasis on source separation will help support a higher
quality of sorted waste in the future.
Liepajas RAS has decided to continue educating children about waste sorting in the
programme ‘Let’s be friends’ and still supports institutions with information
materials, including a digital poster which will be available on Liepajas RAS’ own
website.
Amount of plastic waste collected
During the demo-project four samples from different locations were collected and
assessed. As there are great organisational differences between the places the
28
samples come from, it is difficult to accurately estimate how much plastic there has
been collected during the pilot.
In TABLE 4 the data from the four samples is presented. The collected amounts
range between 1kg and 3kg and the time duration between emptying the bins also
range between 1 and 2 months. In average the amount of collected plastic waste in
the bins each month was 2.7kg.
TABLE 4: DATA ON THE FOUR PLASTIC BIN SAMPLES COLLECTED DURING THE PILOT
Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4
Amount of waste in bin (kg) 2.50 0.90 4.33 3.00
Amount of plastic (kg) 1.78 0.65 3.53 3.00
With 157 bins at different locations this gives an approximated collected amount of
424kg each month. Added up to cover the whole period of the demo-project,
Liepajas RAS estimates that between 2 and 3 tonnes of plastic waste has been
collected throughout the pilot.
Quality of plastic waste collected/sorted
Visits conducted by Liepajas RAS at schools indicate that the majority of the
collected plastic waste is relatively clean. There were a few examples of higher
contamination, but these were most likely caused by insufficient communication
and information material, which was only written in Latvian and not Russian (which
a minority in Liepaja reads and speak).
Based on the four samples an average composition of the collected waste was
estimated, which showed a very low percentage of food and paper/cardboard
contamination. In average there was collected 10 times as much plastics as metals
in the combo-bin (plastic and metal). Most metal stems from tin cans and has been
cleaned by the users prior to being sorted.
TABLE 5: DATA ON THE FOUR SAMPLES COLLECTED FOR ASSESSMENT. GREEN AND BLUE
MATERIALS ARE ACCEPTED WASTE STREAMS; RED MATERIALS ARE CONTAMINANTS Waste type Sample 1
(kg) Sample 2 (kg)
Sample 3 (kg)
Sample 4 (kg)
PET (bottles) 1.30 0.20 1.80 0.50
PE bags 0.05 0.00 0.08 0.20
HDPE packaging 0.13 0.05 0.00 1.60
LDPE packaging 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00
PP 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20
PVC 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other rigid plastics 0.00 0.15 1.50 0.40
Unmarked plastics 0.00 0.10 0.15 0.10
Metal 0.50 0.00 0.40 0.00
Glass 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00
Rubber 0.03 0.00 0.10 0.00
Paper/cardboard 0.05 0.15 0.30 0.00
Other dry waste 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00
Food waste 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total amount of waste collected
2.50 0.90 4.33 3.00
Based on the data of the composition of waste seen in Table 6, the percentage of
plastic waste could be calculated. See Table 7.
In average 82% of all the waste collected in the bins consisted of plastic, 8%
consisted of metal and 10% consisted of other contaminants.
TABLE 6: PERCENTAGES OF PLASTIC CONTENT IN SAMPLES DIFFERED FROM EACH SAMPLE
Waste type Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4
Plastic in bins (%) 66% 72% 81% 100%
29
Success & Barriers
Many institutions confirm that the percentage of residual waste has decreased since
the establishment of the set of municipal sorting bins.
On own initiative some institutions have placed a smaller bin for residual waste
next to the three large bins, as it was their experience that this led to less
contamination of the recyclables. Some institutions found that the glass container
was unnecessary for their needs and it is therefore used for plastic collection
instead.
Among private enterprises an equal increase in awareness has been observed, as
managers have become aware that they can decrease their residual waste (and
thereby their costs) by encouraging more and better sorting. The concept of
indoor/in-office sorting is seen as a great opportunity for doing this and the
demand for more bins is therefore increasing.
In spite of the efforts put into communicating good practices when separating
waste 55% of the interviewed institutions are still not satisfied with the quality of
their sorted waste. Though this implies a ‘positive’ problem (that the users want to
do even better) it also reveals that emphasis should be put into better information
material and that Liepajas RAS’ presence is needed if good results are to be
reached.
As material was written in Latvian it is also a possibility that the Russian-speaking
minority of Liepaja have not been able to read the information materials. In future
projects this will be taken into account.
Some users have expressed that it is time-consuming and a waste of resources to
clean all the plastics with water. This issue is something that needs to be dealt
with, as there is still a contamination problem with food waste in the bins.
There are also some issues connected to the design of the bins themselves, as
some institutions have complained about the choice of dimensions. Another issue is
related to the fact that each bin requires a bin-bag, which means increased costs
for the institutions.
Potential Eco-innovation
The new system supports the education of future users, through creation of
awareness about sorting already at kindergarten age. This means that (especially
on the long run) higher quality in the sorting and collection of recyclables are
expected.
Organizational Impact
The waste bins themselves have turned out to be relatively easy to implement at
the different institutions. The biggest challenge is related to keeping children and
employees motivated at sorting in the future.
Market & Business Opportunities
This pilot demonstrated how large increases in source separated plastic waste can
be achieved by providing the users with knowledge, awareness and opportunity.
The implementation of the waste bins in the municipal institutions led to a larger
collection of recyclables. In order to stimulate a cost-effective recycling system
more recyclables are needed e.g. from the households and residual waste stream.
Educating children in sorting practices may support higher amounts of sorted waste
and hopefully help increase the quality of the collected recyclables.
30
4.5 CITIZENS WILLINGNESS TO SEPARATE PLASTIC WASTE
Demo-Project no. 5
Lead: Tampere RSWM Ltd.
Target Waste stream(s) of pilot
Source separated household plastic packaging waste
Description
The pilot was initiated in June 2013 and was finalised in spring 2014.
Bring schemes is the dominant form of waste collection in Finland for all types of
waste. In Tampere there are 400 unmanned collection points, 21 manned eco-
centres and two waste management centres serving 420,000 inhabitants.
TRSWM does not collect plastic packaging from households, which means that there
exists no data on the amount of waste plastic in Tampere. Except for PET bottles
(which are collected in a separate take-back system) plastic waste is only collected
at two waste management centres in Tampere. The remaining is landfilled.
Due to an upcoming legislation on
producer responsibility for plastic
packaging as well as the upcoming
landfill ban in 2016, a pilot with ten
plastic packaging waste collection
points was initiated on behalf of the
Producer Responsibility organisation in
Finland.
In Tampere drop-off collection points
are traditionally unmanned waste
collection points meant for source-
separated recyclables from nearby
households and are located in public
areas next to supermarkets and
market places. Paper, cardboard, glass
and metal packages are collected at
most drop-off collection points. During
this pilot containers for plastic
packaging were added to ten collection
points.
FIGURE 6: THE CONTAINERS FOR COLLECTING
PLASTIC WERE PLACED IN PUBLIC AREAS,
SUCH AS PARKING LOTS AT SUPERMALLS
The pilot was financed by the Environmental ministry of Finland, the Packaging
association of Finland, packaging producer organizations and the Federation of
Finnish Commerce and ran in the first two quarters of 2012 and included local
waste management companies from the regions of Tampere and Kuopio.
Afterwards the scheme was prolonged to November 2013 because the plastic
packaging producers wanted to collect more data. As a consequence the initial 10
collection points in each area were reduced to 8 throughout the project.
The pilot focused on three aspects: 1) an evaluation of people´s willingness to sort
plastic waste, 2) how and where to setup the most efficient collection scheme and
3) the environmental benefits and economic consequences of such a scheme.
A part of the information gathering centred on interviewing users at the collection
points. In total 494 interviews were conducted and the feedback was used for
designing the future collection scheme. The feedback from the users was found to
be of such value that the interviews now are a permanent activity conducted each
year.
31
A secondary activity included analyses of the collected plastic, which gave insight
on the quantity and quality of the plastic.
Amount of plastic waste collected
It has been estimated that 8-10% of
the residual waste in the Tampere
Region consists of plastic waste. Given
a yearly average generation of 176kg
of residual waste per inhabitant, this
corresponds to approximately 17.6kg
of plastic waste per inhabitant each
year.
On average approximately 4 tonnes of
plastic waste was collected from the
ten collection points each week. This
would mean a yield equal to 0.74kg
per capita in a year.
FIGURE 7: THE COLLECTED SAMPLES
CONSISTED OF BOTH RIGID AND FLEXIBLE
PLASTIC TYPES.
Seen from the perspective that plastic was only collected at ten out of 400
collection points, this is quite good as it would correspond to approximately 30kg
per capita when scaled up.
Quality of plastic waste collected/sorted
The quality of the collected plastic packaging waste was sorted by hand and
evaluated, which resulted in 12 waste categories:
PP packaging 21% PET packaging 11% HD/LD packaging 11% PS packaging 6% O packaging 9% Films, soft plastics 23% Other packaging 1% Other plastic products 10% Non plastic 6% PVC 0.5% Hazardous waste 1% Other contaminants 0.5%
FIGURE 8: GREEN-COLOURED PLASTICS ARE WANTED IN THE COLLECTION SCHEME; RED-
MARKED PLASTICS ARE UNWANTED PLASTIC TYPES
18% of the collected waste consisted of unwanted plastics and other contaminants
in the plastic value stream.
Success & Barriers
The pilot showed that a part of the citizens are willing and able to sort plastic
waste. The feedback from the users also underlined that it was desirable to have
the possibility of sorting.
The scheme has not been implemented in Tampere. The recently revised waste
legislation on post consumer plastic waste will ensure that plastic waste is managed
under producer responsibility. In Finland, they are now in a process of deciding
which plastic types they will collect separately, how the scheme should be
organised and which actors within the waste management industry they should
cooperate with in the future.
Potential Eco-innovation
It has been the intention of this pilot to investigate the willingness of using
collection points. The results are promising so far, though the waste system in
32
Tampere and Finland unfortunately cannot support a full and permanent roll-out of
the collection scheme.
Including users in the process constitutes a more co-creative approach to designing
a new collection scheme, and has the potential of supporting the future scheme
with a more value adding and efficient setup than otherwise would have developed.
Organizational Impact
The feedback showed that users were most willing to use the collection points if
they were located somewhat near their homes. However, it is important to
emphasise that most people did not find it desirable to have waste collection close
to their home.
Market & Business Opportunities
The pilot has shown that plastic waste is available if the citizens are provided with
the opportunity to recycle. In the future packaging waste collection will be driven
by producer responsibility and the producers have to provide collection nationwide.
This will create new businesses for the transportation sector and recycling industry.
4.6 KERBSIDE COLLECTION OF RIGID PLASTIC WASTE
Demo-Project no. 6
Lead: City of Copenhagen
Target Waste Stream(s) of forum
Packaging and non-packaging: Plastic
bottles without/with refund; soap,
shampoo, detergents; clean pots and
tubes and trays from fruit, ice cream
etc.; CD covers, and other plastic
items such as buckets, tubes and
toys. Containers must be empty.
The scheme is for flats only. A little
less than 90% of all dwellings in
Copenhagen are in blocks of flats.
Description
The implementation began in September 2012 and the
scheme was introduced gradually one city district at
the time. In March 2014 the scheme was fully
implemented in all ten city districts, i.e. for 250,000
flats and 450,000 inhabitants.
Analyses have shown that around 30% of the residual
waste is recyclable and so there is a significant
potential for increasing the recycling. The city council
decided to introduce three kerbside collection schemes
for blocks of flats: rigid plastic waste, metal waste and
‘small’ WEEE.
The aim is to collect rigid plastics from households for recycling, and to test both
the quality of the rigid plastic collected and how well sorting facilities can separate
the rigid plastic into types. It is expected that 1,000 tonnes of plastic waste will be
collected per year, corresponding to around 3.8 kg per household. Each household
pays 19 DKK (2.5 EUR) per year for the rigid plastic waste collection. The amount
may rise a bit (around 0.5 EUR) to cover the full costs of the sorting.
33
In April 2014, 445 tonnes of rigid plastic waste has been collected. The city districts
where the scheme has been in place for a year or more, collects around 2.2 kg
plastic waste per household.
COLLECTED RIGID PLASTIC WASTE PER MONTH, TONNES: COLLECTED (BARS) AND
PROGNOSIS (DOTTED LINE)
As the collected amounts are still low, the city has not entered into an agreement
with one sorting facility but has decided to test different facilities. In July 2014, four
such facilities have been tested. The results are presented in the Plastic Zero
report, Test notes on practical test and demonstration initiatives, August 2014.
Success & Barriers
When introducing the scheme to a
new district, a meeting has been
held with the janitors in the district.
All in all, 7 meetings with over 650
participants have been held.
Information regarding the system
has been sent to all the residents in
the given district. A public event
with information has been given
around the district where the
citizens have had a chance to
become acquainted with the new
scheme and ask questions about
sorting, and treatment of the waste
plastic. The response to this
approach has been positive.
The janitors have been seen as important actors as they communicate with both
the citizens and the local authority. No janitors or citizens have complained about
the new collection scheme. It has been a success to increase the frequency of
collection of the existing containers for residual waste, and thereby save space for
the new containers.
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
70,0
80,0
90,0
100,0
okt
-12
no
v-1
2d
ec-1
2ja
n-1
3fe
b-1
3m
ar-1
3ap
r-1
3m
aj-1
3ju
ni-
13
juli-
14
aug-
13
sep
-13
okt
-13
no
v-1
3d
ec-1
3ja
n-1
4fe
b-1
4m
ar-1
4ap
r-1
4m
aj-1
4ju
ni-
14
juli-
15
aug-
14
sep
-14
okt
-14
no
v-1
4d
ec-1
4ja
n-1
5fe
b-1
5m
ar-1
5ap
r-1
5m
aj-1
5ju
ni-
15
juli-
16
aug-
15
sep
-15
okt
-15
no
v-1
5d
ec-1
5
Ton
Indsamlede mængder pr. måned: Hård plast
Hård plast
Hård plast -prognose
34
There has been a high acceptance of
the new systems from both janitors
and citizens which can be ascribed
to the thorough information
campaign.
Some citizens have found it difficult
to differentiate between rigid and
flexible plastic. Illustrations on the
bins of what goes where seem to
help the citizens as well as the
thumb rule that “if you can tie a
knot of it, it is not rigid plastic”.
Rigid plastic have a high volume, when it is collected, the frequency of collection
maybe needs to be increased.
Potential Eco-innovation
The demo-project has resulted in some new solutions, never used before in the
city:
Coloured lid on the container, to indicate that the container is for a new waste
stream
A collection truck with three compartments, that makes is possible for one
truck to collect all three waste streams. In other parts of the city, two trucks
are used: one with two compartments and a regular truck. Using a three-
compartment truck means that, citizens are only disturbed once for the pickup
of their recyclables.
Organizational Impact
The concrete campaign that have been designed and rolled out for those three new
fractions, have had some benefits.
It has served as an eye opener to the citizens to talk about waste separation.
The municipality had also had more meetings face-to-face with the janitors,
which is considered to overall benefit the waste collection.
Participation in a network for municipalities to exchange experience and ideas
in collection of plastic from households
Market & Business Opportunities
Manufacturers of kitchens and kitchen hardware may have a market opportunity in
designing kitchens for (small) flats with better sorting furniture’s.
There is a need for establishing a plastic sorting facility in the greater Copenhagen
area both in order to reduce the transport distances (to sorting facilities in Germany
today) and to influence the quality of separated plastic waste.
The collection of plastic waste is also considered to result in the creation of new
jobs in the recycling sector.
35
4.7 FLEXIBLE PLASTIC WASTE WHEN MOVING INTO NEW BUILDINGS
Demo-Project no. 7
Lead: City of Copenhagen
Target Waste stream(s) of pilot
Flexible plastic and different wrappings of e.g. transported goods
Description
The pilot was carried out from 20 March to 16 April and also included a citizen
satisfaction survey for evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the scheme.
When residents are moving into new buildings, a large amount of flexible plastic
and cardboard is discarded. In this pilot City of Copenhagen set up containers for
plastic and cardboard in two buildings.
The main purpose was to examine the amount of flexible plastic waste generated
when new residents move in. Secondly the pilot aimed at facilitating better future
handling of recyclables such as plastics and cardboard by creating awareness on
the subject.
Amount of plastic waste collected
During the test period 120kg of flexible plastic waste was collected.
Quality of plastic waste collected/sorted
The collected waste plastic was visually inspected and found to be very clean and
therefore potentially valuable as a recyclable material.
Success & Barriers
In general the residents responded very positively to the collection scheme. It was
emphasised that the scheme had been so successful due to the timing, but might
be less useful to the inhabitants later in the move-in periods. In general people
asked for better communication with the waste managers, as their needs change
over time.
Setting up the two fractions clearly made a difference as both of them were used
during the test. However, the cardboard collection could easily have consisted of
two containers, since the volume of flexible plastic had been too optimistically
estimated.
In spite of different attempts at creating awareness of the pilot and communicating
how to sort flexible plastics appropriately, many residents failed in this. As a result
many of the containers with flexible plastic got contaminated with other plastics,
residual waste etc.
It should be noted that the number of contaminated plastic containers dropped
during the project period. This indicates that residents given time might have
shown better and more effective sorting practices.
A possible reason for the failed sorting may be related to the fact that the
information material was only in Danish. In similar pilots emphasis should be put
into this issue, for instance by including an English version.
Potential Eco-innovation
The concept is innovative in the sense that there are no previous experiences with
collection directed at new residences specifically, or with a “need addressed
collection” directed at specific value streams from households.
36
Organizational Impact
Based on the positive feedback from the residents and the great potential in
collecting flexible plastic, a plan of implementing the collection scheme was initiated
in late 2013. It is the hope of the City of Copenhagen to introduce this new scheme
in the near future, which could support the caretakers in their efforts of increasing
sorting and collection of flexible plastic and other recyclables.
Collection method depends on the setup of several containers at new moving-in and
thorough information about the scheme in advance. It is also emphasized that a
caretaker or other local resource-person helps informing about correct sorting
practices and avoid the containers from being overloaded.
Market & Business Opportunities
The market potential depends on three aspects: 1) clearly communicating sorting
information, 2) an affiliated local resource person who follows up on the system and
possible errors and 3) time given to raise residents’ awareness about the new
scheme.
In this pilot the collected amounts of waste plastic were insufficient, mainly caused
by the discarding of several containers and their content. The trend, however, was
as the trial progressed that fewer wrongly sorted containers were identified.
Another key aspect was the accessibility of the scheme. In some cases residents
were sorry that the containers had been removed after only a month, because their
need for the scheme had continued in several months after the initial move in i.e.
new furniture (with high volumes of flexible plastic) was delivered later on.
4.8 RECYCLING OF USED BEVERAGE CARTON
Demo-Project no. 8
Lead City of Copenhagen
Target Waste Stream(s) of forum
Used beverage cartons (UBC) such as milk and juice cartons. The demo-project is a
result of collaborative forum no 8. The City of Copenhagen is awaiting further
results from the pilot which is why the final evaluation is still ongoing.
Description
The aim was to examine the practical and
economic viability of a scheme for collecting
used beverage cartons and pizza boxes in the
existing scheme for cardboard in blocks of
flats3. Today, used beverage carton is not
collected for recycling but is incinerated with
residual waste.
The demo-project comprised 4,500
households and ran over a period of 6
months, starting October 2013. It was
decided to collect UBC and pizza boxes in the
existing scheme for cardboard. The pilot was
conducted in cooperation with a dairy
company (Arla Foods), a packaging
manufacturer (Tetra Pak) and a reprocessor
(Fiskeby Board).
3 Residents in flats sort their waste for collection in 10-12 waste streams. Kerbside: paper,
cardboard, rigid plastic, metal, ’small’ WEEE, batteries, residual waste, bulky waste and ‘large’ WEEE, garden waste and some also have hazardous waste. Bring scheme: glass.
37
The cardboard fraction was collected every two weeks and baled at cphWaste. Each
bale was numbered with the collection date.
Prior to the pilot, three reference collections were made. Unfortunately, one of
these amounts was about half of the usual amount collected and so this represents
an uncertainty in the assessment.
During the pilot the amount of collected cardboard, carton, UBC and pizza boxes
rose by 8% but the amounts fluctuated considerably. According to the draft
business case, the amount had to increase by 55% to break even. The pilot period
may have been too short to allow the citizens to acquire new habits and separate
their used beverage cartons and pizza boxes for recycling rather than for residual
waste.
A key concern was that the used beverage cartons and pizza boxes would
contaminate the clean cardboard and give rise to complaints about smell or other
unpleasant effects. That has not been the case. Not a single complaint has been
received during the pilot.
The composition of the cardboard from
the pilot was examined at Fiskeby Board
in Sweden. It was done as core samples
(as in ice core samples) from each bale.
The results show that 4.1% of the
collected cardboard was UBC, 12% was
packaging (usually carton boxes) and
other materials and cardboard was
7.7%.
Three bales of cardboard from outside the pilot area were also examined but some uncertainties exist regarding whether
these bales actually represent the cardboard fraction collected in the remainder of
the city. Hence, it has been decided to carry out further tests and the results are
not yet ready.
All households in the pilot area received a
letter about the pilot in September. Half
way through the pilot they also received a
postcard with brief information about the
result so far and a thank you for their
participation.
A meeting was held with the building
janitors in the pilot area late September.
Posters were sent to the janitors. The
posters were to be placed in the backyard
where the containers for recyclable waste
are located (see picture to the right).
Information about the pilot and a map of
the pilot area could be found at the city’s
website, www.kk.dk
Other communication included news on
Arla Foods’ milk cartons, an article in the
Danish magazine, Ingeniøren, an article in
the information brief to citizens in
Copenhagen about waste, Affald KBH, and
an article on Tetrapak’s website.
UBC; 4,1%
Other materials; 3,3%
Packaging; 12,3%
Cardboard; 75,9%
Other cardboard;
4,4%
38
4.9 PLASTIC WASTE COLLECTION AND SORTING FOR NEW CONSTRUCTIONS
Demo-Project no. 9
Lead
City of Copenhagen
Target Waste stream(s) of pilot
Mixed plastic waste from construction sites (including, LDPE, PVC etc.)
Description
This pilot was initiated in late 2012 and was finalised in spring 2013.
Based on the findings and discussions in Forum 4 a pilot was established between
the City of Copenhagen and a large Danish waste collector. It was agreed that the
waste collector should take responsibility of selecting one or two suitable sites for a
demo-project aiming at investigating the sorting capability at construction sites in
general.
It was decided to perform two pilots with different scenarios:
1) The construction site sorts the plastic into three fractions: Clean foils, rigid
plastics and mixed plastics
2) The construction site sorts all plastics in a single container.
The main objective was to learn which of the scenarios that would lead to:
The highest amount of collected plastics
The highest quality of collected recyclables
The highest recycling rate of collected plastics
Furthermore, it was of interest for both partners to learn which method the workers
considered the easiest/most user friendly in their daily work.
Two tests were originally planned and agreed upon at a meeting and two
construction sites were selected for the purpose.
The dissemination of the test turned out to be more difficult than expected. Due to
this only a single test was conducted on sorting and collection of a mixed plastic
waste stream at a single construction site.
Amount of plastic waste collected
The demo-project lasted for four months, but the collection of plastic waste was
mostly successful in two of the months in this period. See Table 7. In total 320 kg
of mixed plastic was collected.
TABLE 7: COLLECTED AMOUNTS OF PLASTIC AND THE FRACTION ‘SMALL COMBUSTIBLE’
DURING THE PILOT Period Small combustible (kg) Mixed plastic waste (kg)
September 60 0
October 65 0
November 1,000 240
December 1,000 80
Total 2,125 320
Quality of plastic waste collected/sorted
The two loads were collected by the waste company and based on a visual
assessment were invoiced as PVC and LDPE, respectively.
According to the waste collector it is not unusual that the collected waste types
vary during a construction project (e.g. when laying the foundation there might be
very little plastic waste, whereas a lot of packaging film can be collected as larger
39
elements are being installed), but in this case the invoices were considered very
unreliable as it is unlikely that the batch of 240kg consisted of only PVC. It is more
likely that a majority of rigid plastics were found in the container, which was
estimated to be mostly PVC by either the driver or worker at the reception facility.
Success & Barriers
The pilot was not performed according to the original arrangement, since it was
challenging to find suitable construction sites for the pilots. Especially the pilot with
many sorting streams was difficult to “sell” to a construction site, as it was
considered a hindrance in the daily work to spend time on waste separation.
In general it was a barrier to get people on the construction site to take
responsibility of the sorting activity.
It was also a barrier that no formal paper of intent had been signed when planning
the demo-project. This could possibly have led to a higher involvement of the waste
collector. Instead most of the responsibility lay at the local authorities and not the
people who were part of the daily work.
Potential Eco-innovation
The pilot intended to investigate different collection schemes in order to propose
the most suitable sorting concept for construction sites. Such a scheme has not
been developed before and could potentially divert a large amount of plastic waste
away from the incineration stream.
Organizational Impact
Implementing either of the proposed sorting schemes at construction sites imply
that more containers would be needed. But as it has been revealed different waste
streams arise at different periods of time during a construction project. This might
open up for temporary collection schemes, which would also decrease the collection
costs. It might be relevant to use a small baler, though it is costly if not used
actively and with a high purity in the input waste.
Market & Business Opportunities
As approximately 20% of the total plastic consumption is used within the
construction and demolition sector, there is a great potential amount of plastic
waste to be collected. As seen in other sectors it is possible to decrease the cost of
handling the waste by increasing the quality through better sorting.
4.10 PLASTICS AMOUNT, QUALITY AND RECYCLING OPPORTUNITIES IN MIXED
WASTE
Demo-Project no. 10
Lead: Liepajas RAS
Target Waste stream(s) of pilot
Mixed waste (rigid and flexible plastics, rubber, metals, textiles, paper and
cardboard, glass, wood, organic waste etc.)
Description
This pilot was initiated in December 2013 and was finalised in May 2014.
In the Liepaja Waste management region 90% of mixed waste is still landfilled,
including plastic waste of different origin. Liepajas RAS has set a target of reducing
the amount of disposed residual waste with 15% in 2015 and so landfill must be
addressed. In order to gain a better understanding of the potential amount of
plastic recyclables in the landfill waste stream, Liepajas RAS initiated a series of
initiatives for evaluating the quantity, composition and quality as well as the
recycling opportunities.
40
In order to evaluate the amount of plastic waste potential, six truck loads of mixed
waste from Liepaja city and rural districts were delivered to Liepajas RAS for further
assessment. Subsequently, the samples were weighed and all plastic waste was
extracted. As Liepajas RAS does not have the equipment or expertise to evaluate
the recyclability of the plastic waste, three samples were delivered to two recycling
plants – Nordic Plast Ltd. in Olaine and JRC Pet Baltija in Jelgava city.
The pilot resulted in a collection of approx. 1.310 tonnes of mixed waste, of which
10.8% in average consisted of plastic waste.
Amount of plastic waste collected
Six loads of mixed waste were evaluated in total. See Table 8. The weight of each
load differed from 140 kg to 304.4 kg and the amount of plastic waste in these
from 12.2 kg to 34.8 kg, equal to 8.7-12% of the total volume. In total 1.31 tonnes
of mixed plastic waste was evaluated of which 0.14 tonnes consisted of plastic
waste. The average percentage of plastic in the mixed waste was therefore found to
be 10.8%.
TABLE 8: DATA ON EVALUATED MIXED WASTE AND PLASTICS PERCENTAGE Source of mixed waste
Amount of mixed waste (kg)
Weight of plastics (kg)
Plastic amount in waste (%)
Liepaja City 304.4 31.65 10.4%
Liepaja City 290 34.8 12%
Rural areas 192 17.28 9%
Liepaja City 214 25.25 11.8%
Rural areas 140 12.2 8.7%
Rural areas 170 20.4 10.2%
TOTAL 1310.40 141.58 10.8%
Quality of plastic waste collected/sorted
In cooperation with Nordic Plast Ltd. and JRC Pet Baltija, Liepajas RAS conducted a
thorough sorting and assessment of three of the collected truck loads. See Table 9.
The largest streams of the waste were PET, PP and HDPE. A relatively large amount
was categorised as ‘Unmarked’, which consisted mainly of cosmetic packaging,
chemical packaging and toys.
The lesser fractions consisted of e.g. LDPE, PS and the category ‘Other’ (which
often consist of Polycarbonate, BPA products etc.
TABLE 9: SORTED PLASTIC WASTE BY TYPES OF RESINS
Plastic types Load No.1
(Liepaja City) Load No.2
(Liepaja City) Load No.3
(Rural municipalities)
LDPE (%) 2 4 0
HDPE (%) 6 9 18
PP 5 (%) 19 23 12
PET 1 (%) 47 38 45
PS 6 (%) 5 7 4
OTHER 7 (%) 4 7 2
Unmarked (%) 17 12 19
In the third phase of the demo-project recyclers evaluated the different resins of
plastic waste and concluded that PET, HDPE and LDPE were the resins with highest
recyclability.
PP was estimated to be somewhat recyclable, depending on the actual product,
whereas the resins of PS, Other and unmarked were all currently unsuitable for
recycling. It was estimated that approximately 65% of the mixed waste was
41
recyclable. For the remaining 35% it was suggested to investigate further, whether
these would be suitable as Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF).
Success & Barriers
The first challenge to this demo-project was to collect a suitable amount of plastic
waste to be analysed. During the pilot loads of appropriate sizes from both city and
rural areas of Liepaja were successfully sorted and analysed. A barrier in this
regard was that Liepajas RAS only had limited space available for storing the plastic
waste. In order to analyse larger samples (e.g. 1 Tonne) more space is required.
It is also considered a success that Liepajas RAS with very few means were able to
manually sort a very large part of the plastics. The sorting was possible because of
the resin type markings on much of the packaging. A barrier on the other hand was
that some producers clearly still are sending plastic products on market that do not
have the legally required resin type markings on them. In one sample this resulted
in the rejection of 19% of the collected plastic. The primary sources of the rejects
are toys, cosmetic packaging and packaging for household chemicals, but also
producers of eco-products use unmarked plastic packaging.
It is considered a success that the largest part of the collected waste could be
sorted and identified by resin type and that this method, though crude, was very
easy to communicate to inexperienced sorting staff. The initial manual sorting also
increased the subsequent separation phase. On the other hand it is also recognised
that the mixed fraction consists of a large number of different plastic types. In fact
only the PET and PP streams were large enough to be economically viable to sort
and transport and it is not likely that any plastic re-processor in Latvia would be
able or willing to accept the remaining waste streams.
The large amount of PET in the waste streams also highlighted that the PET
collection scheme in Liepaja needs to be improved. Firstly, because PET is the
single-most valuable plastic type in the recycling system and secondly because the
PET’s quality is decreased when it is collected in a mixed waste stream.
Potential Eco-innovation
As knowledge on plastic waste streams in Latvia in general is very limited, the
findings in this demo-project play a vital role for the future developments in Latvian
waste management schemes.
Organizational Impact
Most of the challenges in this test have been related to technological deficiencies
and the lack of proper storage of the collected material. In general many of the
findings seem to indicate that it is quite straightforward to teach employees about
the resin separation symbols and sort the plastics accordingly. In order to
successfully implement such a sorting scheme, more effort should be put into
customer awareness and promotional campaigns. Also, in order to make the
scheme financially sound an investment in waste compressors may be necessary,
as this enables more compact storing of the recyclables and a more cost-efficient
delivery to recycling plants.
Market & Business Opportunities
It is estimated that around 31,799 tonnes of mixed waste are landfilled each year
in Liepaja. With the estimation of 10.8% being plastic waste, this gives a potential
amount of 3434.3 tonnes of mixed plastic waste of which approx. 65% (equal to
2232.3 tonnes/year) should be recyclable and therefore re-distributable in the
market.
42
5 ANNEX I: ABOUT PLASTIC ZERO
The objective of the project is:
To identify the main challenges and barriers for reducing plastic waste in the
residual waste stream, and hereby stimulate prevention and recycling of plastic
waste.
To promote recycling of plastic polymers as a substitute for virgin plastic.
To divert plastic waste from incineration (creating a carbon neutral energy
source) and landfill.
An important feature of the Plastic Zero project has been to set up collaborative
forums involving public and private stakeholders. The forums aim at identifying and
analysing relevant interfaces between the partners in the value chain, and provide
the necessary support and incentives for setting up cooperation aiming at making
value chains more sustainable. By involving all stakeholders in the value chain
there will be an opportunity to rethink product design.
In addition, interviews with European stakeholders and site visits have been
conducted, plus literature in the field have been reviewed.
Plastic Zero is a 3-year LIFE+ project that started in September 2011 and was
finalised in August 2014.
The partners of the project are three cities, three waste management companies
and one university:
City of Copenhagen
City of Malmö
City of Hamburg (Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg)
Liepajas RAS
Tampere RSWM Ltd. (Pirkanmaan Jätehuolto OY)
I/S Amager Resourcecenter (ARC)
Aalborg University (AAU)
Actions in the project include:
1. Road map for management of waste plastics
2. Demonstration of plastic waste preventive measures
3. Demonstration of innovative technologies and methods for sorting waste
plastics
4. Demonstration of innovative technologies and methods to recycle and recover
waste plastics
5. Dissemination of information of good practices, technologies and systems.
43
6 ANNEX II: MONITORING TEMPLATES
44