Collection models for flexible packaging in a circular economy: CEFLEX Webinar

ceflex.eu
@MissionCircular
Collection models for flexible packaging in a circular economy
WEBINAR
10 September 2020

Agenda
WhatWhen Who
Input: Framing the topic ETH11:15-11:25
Open Panel Q&A12:00-12:20 CEFLEX/ETH
Wrap-up & Outlook12:20-12:30 CEFLEX/ETH
Spotlight: Quality implications of collection systems11:45-11:55 HTP
Spotlight: Collection logistics11:25-11:35 Suez
Spotlight: Operator’s perspective: separate collection v post sorting11:35-11:45 Attero
11:05-11:15 Introduction: Collection – a key issue for delivering a circular economy for flexible
packaging
CEFLEX
Welcome and introduction11:00-11:05 CEFLEX

• Collection of flexible packaging waste central to
achieving a circular economy for flexible
packaging
• With multiple approaches at local, regional or
national levels, collection is one of 12 identified
issues for CEFLEX to develop understanding and
reach a common position on
• Today’s webinar part of this alignment process
and a precursor to an in-depth workshop and
position paper - to guide developments and give
clarity around collection
Introduction

Our Vision and ‘Mission Circular’
Collection of all flexible packaging
With over 80% of materials entering a recycling
process to be returned to the economy
And used by sustainable end markets to
substitute virgin materials

5 Steps to Build a Circular Economy
for Flexible Packaging

Collection realities in the context of the CEFLEX vision
• Reality 1: A significant proportion of flexible
packaging (FP) is returned by the mixed waste
collection.
• Reality 2: Consumers are not consistent in
separation; especially of FP.
• Reality 3: Separate collection in densely populated
cities appears not to work effectively.
• Reality 4: CEFLEX work on a Quality Recycling
Process for new end markets has shown no
difference in the quality achievable from rFP with
materials from both streams (recognising costs and
additional processing are needed for post sorting).

Agenda
WhatWhen Who
packaging
CEFLEX

Source: Statistical Office of the European Union
PPWD: Target 2030
Most Member States do not meet EU targets

To meet EU targets, we will need more than improving recycling
Collected
Sorted
Recycled
Recyclate
output
Used
we need to make sure more packaging is
collected, sorted and then recycled

Waste Framework Directive obligates Member States to set up separate
collection, but allows for the possibility of derogations
• § 3: ‘separate collection’ means the collection where a waste stream is kept separately by type and nature so as to facilitate a specific treatment
• § 10 (2): […] to facilitate or improve preparing for re-use, recycling and other recovery operations, waste shall be subject to separate collection and
shall not be mixed with other waste or other materials with different properties.
• § 10 (3): Member States may allow derogations from paragraph 2 provided that at least one of the following conditions is met:
• (a) collecting certain types of waste together does not affect their potential to undergo preparing for re-use, recycling […] and results in
output from those operations which is of comparable quality to that achieved through separate collection;
• (b) separate collection does not deliver the best environmental outcome when considering the overall environmental impacts of the
management of the relevant waste streams;
• (c) separate collection is not technically feasible taking into consideration good practices in waste collection;
• (d) separate collection would entail disproportionate economic costs taking into account the costs of adverse environmental and health
impacts of mixed waste collection and treatment, the potential for efficiency improvements in waste collection and treatment, revenues from
sales of secondary raw materials as well as the application of the polluter-pays principle and extended producer responsibility.
• § 11 (1): Member States shall take measures to promote high-quality recycling and, to this end, subject to Article 10(2) and (3), shall set up separate
collection of waste.
Subject to Article 10(2) and (3), Member States shall set up separate collection at least for paper, metal, plastic and glass, and, by 1 January
2025, for textiles.

Most likely, trade-offs and adjustments to local realities are
required to find a viable solution
Examples of boundary conditions and trade-offs
Cost of collection systems
Technical feasibility
Different realities in urban and rural areas
Loss of material for recycling
Contamination / Quality of recyclate
Regulatory frame / Compliance
Different level of training of citizens
Different realities in different countries
Diverse stakeholder expectations
Different options for "mixed collection",
e.g. co-mingling of streams

• Many options represent a combination of
solutions
• What is viable may differ by country,
region, urban or rural
• We need to formulate an aspiration and
guidance that encourages the best
alternative in a given reality
A multitude of approaches

Agenda
WhatWhen Who
packaging
CEFLEX

COLLECTING
FLEXIBLE PACKAGING
STUDY - UK
Stuart Hayward-Higham
Technical Development Director

End
markets
The questions we set out to answer
16
Could current and future
collection services capture it?
How much flexible packaging is sold to
consumers/POM each year?
How would we collect it?
And how does collection fit
with sorting and treatment
Is there/will there be the
infrastructure to be able to sort
and recycle it?
CEFLEX - SUEZ collections work for FPC

• Placed On Market (POM)
17 I
PE and PP represent at least 70% of
flexible packs placed on market.
(Reflex found nearly 80%).
SUEZ bottom up analysis of UK
residual waste:
895,000 tonnes per year.
~215 billion packs per year.
Household / “household – like” films /
flexibles represent 4% of HH waste
and 8% of C&I waste by weight,
Generally HH residual waste is
heavier then C&I
Region Family Source
Tonnes
('000)
Pack numbers
(billions)
UK
Polyolefins(PO)
PE mono
Estimate WRAP/REFLEX27F
176 43
WRAP/Valpak28F
229 56
CEFLEX (UK estimate) 563 137
Of which
carrier bags
Estimate WRAP/REFLEX 121.5 pre-carrier bag tax
WRAP/Valpak 26 n/a
CEFLEX (UK estimate) n/a n/a
PP mono
Estimate WRAP/REFLEX 72 17
WRAP/Valpak 79 19
PE/PP
WRAP/Valpak n/a n/a
CEFLEX (UK estimate) n/a n/a
Metallised
WRAP/Valpak 31 7
Aluminium
WRAP/Enval29F
139 33
Enval30F 160 38
Others
WRAP/Valpak 56 13
UK total
Estimate WRAP/REFLEX 450* 100
WRAP/Valpak 534** 130
RECOUP (2018) 1141 270
SUEZ research 895 215
CEFLEX (UK estimate) 987 *** 240
AVERAGE UK 808 195
EU total CEFLEX 7,600 *** 1,800
Placed on Market check
Ceflex - SUEZ collections work for FPC

30 September 2020
Municipal collections
CEFLEX - SUEZ collections work for FPC
18 I

• municipal collections | process
19 I
Weight produced per household
per week (kg)
Space availability on collection
vehicles – current services
Space availability on collection
vehicles – post DRS
Volume produced per household
per week (capture rate)
Collection options based on
service type and reprocessor
preferences
Costs associated with possible
options
Considerations

• municipal collections | methodology
20 I
• Dry vs wet flexibles
¢ 72% of the flexible packaging is likely to have dry contaminants left after consumption
¢ 72:28 split of dry vs wet contamination assumed.
¢ Wet flexibles may require a weekly collection service (e.g. odour/infestation)
Proportion of G/HH/WK
Dry flexibles 208
Wet flexibles 82

21 I
• Calculating available space
Volume = weight / density

22 I
• Resources and waste policy impact calculator

23 I
• Cost of collection and local handling
Average cost
per tonne
Average cost
per KG
All services
Kerbside sort
Co-mingled
Costs included should be the core costs of collection
and localised handling/processing of materials –also
think overheads, container deliveries and comms have
not been included due the differences in cost allocation.

30 September 2020
business waste
collections
24 I

• Basis of the calculation of the cost of
collection.
25 I
In the modelling we have defined two fundamental costs,
The service cost and the treatment cost.
The service cost is defined as the cost of truck and crew attending a customers
site to empty a container. Service costs will vary by geography (further to travel
between lifts) and the time it takes to lift the actual container. Service cost is also
influenced by the route density achieved by the waste management collector
(WMC) which is independent of factors controlled by the waste producer.
The treatment cost is the cost it takes to process the actual collected materials
into (for the purposes of this collections study) a series of crude mono-streams
ready for recycling and/or reprocessing.
If a material was collected as a mono-stream, it would not need as much treatment
cost for sorting. If a material is collected in a mingled stream then the cost of
treatment to a crude mono-stream would be more significant.

• Service charge – lift limits by weight
26 I
~0.36 Kg per
employee per
week for flexibles
~520Ktpa used in
HHL environments
Flexibles weight is
added to current
weight profiles of
customers.

Post-
separation
Alternative and
complementary
to source-separation
Robert Corijn, Attero B.V.
The Netherlands

Post-consumer recycled plastics

Benefits of post-separation
• High recycling results
• Predictable collection quality
• Independent of consumer behavior
• Minimal transport movements
• Service for citizens
• Quality / cleanliness of public space
• Expansion to other post-separation streams
possible (metals, tetras, diapers, wood, e-
waste)
• Combined contracting with MSW
• No investment in city or collection
infrastructure
• Low cost for society
Environmental
result
Cost level Public acceptance
‘Balance’

Current post-separation installations
Attero
Attero
Omrin
AEB
HVC
AVR
143
190 203 170
24
30 42
170
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2016 2017 2018 Future?
Household plastic packaging collected (kton)
Source separation Post separation
“I would not be surprised if post-
separation will contribute 50% to our
plastic recycling results in the future”. Dutch EPR organization Afvalfonds

Choosing for post-separation: 3 routes
1) Switch to post-separation for
complete municipality
• E.g. City of Utrecht test results
• Source-separation
plastic/metal/tetras: 26%
• Post-separation: 51%
• E.g. Town of Oegstgeest
• Source-separation: 23%
• Post-separation: 70%
• Other examples: Groningen,
Amsterdam, The Hague,
Rotterdam, Leiden
2) Switch to post-separation for specific
districts (e.g. all highrise areas)
• E.g. HVC with Dordrecht, Alkmaar
3) Add post-separation to source-
separation (separate twice)
• E.g. Arnhem, Amersfoort, Breda,
Maastricht, Heerlen, Venlo

Quality of source-separated collected materials
Dependent on service provided
• Regular bi-weekly collection:
20% pollution
• Reverse collection (no curbside
collection of MSW, pay per
throw when you bring MSW):
38% pollution
Source: Eureco
Dependent on collection method
• Curbside collection in
transparant bags: two-weekly
collection: 17% pollution
• Curbside collection in mini-
containers: 30% pollution
Source: Learning Centre Kunststof
Verpakkingsafval
Versus quality of post-separated
material: Always constant and
leading to DKR310 film bales

Quality of recycled materials from source- and post-separation
Study by Wageningen University & Research on
molecular pollution in recycled plastic film from
source- and post-separation (June 2020):
“Based on this exploratory study there seems to be
no significant difference between the molecular
pollution of recycled material from source- and
post-separation. Both materials smell, but in a
different matter. The final choice for a collection
system will depend on the broader context in which
many factors play a role: not only the technical, but
also the economic and societal factors”.

Recyclable Content in Black and Yellow Bins
2020 status - City of Hamburg - Germany
39
7,6%
2,1%
3,6%
86,7%
Residual Waste (Black Bin)
1. plastic
2. metal
3. composite
4. other material/residue
46%
10%
11%
33%
Recyclables (Yellow Bin)
1. plastic
2. metal
3. composite
4. other material/residue
Source: Recyclability of post-consumer plastic packaging
Müll u. Abfall, März 2020
Authors: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Kerstin Kuchta
M. Sc. Caterina Picura
The graphic was redacted by HTP without any changes in the figures
Findings of study published by TUHH, Prof. Kuchta (excerpt)
ØThe capture rate (Trennquote) for post-consumer plastic packaging is 74%
- 26% of plastic packing is collected with the Black Bin
- 74% of plastic packaging is collected with the Yellow Bin (Wertstofftonne)
Ø The total of plastic in the Black Bin contains 50% plastic packaging
Ø The ratio of targeted items (plastic/metal/composite) vs. other/residual items is
- 86,7 / 13,7 = about 6 in the Black Bin
- 33 / 67 = about 0,5 in the Yellow Bin

Sorting performance evaluation -
Black vs. Yellow Bin Sorting
40
Sorting KPI (Key Performance Indices)
Ø Hourly Input Capacities
- 32 t/h per line for Residual Waste (Black Bin)
- 16 t/h per line for mixed recyclables (Yellow Bin)
Ø Hourly Production Capacities of plastic packaging
- 1,2 t/h per line (Black Bin) → 7,6% x 0,5 of 32 t/h
- 7,4 t/h per line (Yellow Bin) → 46 % of 16 t/h
Ø Product range in plastics
- Residual sorting line: 2 - 5 (mixed heavies, PE-film or
HDPE, PP, PET, mixed flexibles, MP)
- Recyclables line: 7 – 14 (HDPE, PP, (PS), PET-bottle (color grades 1 - 3),
PET-tray, PE-film (color grades 1 - 2), (PP-film),
PO-film, MP)
note: the limited product range in Residual Sorting lines due to lower capacities
ØQuality parameters
- Residual Sorting lines and Recyclable lines need to comply with the same
quality parameters set forth by the recyclers
- Due to the high standards, wide range of products and low production
capacities, the Residual Sorting lines tend to limit the efforts in QM services
Residual Waste
Sorting line
Mixed Recyclables
Sorting line
full range of Plastic Products
according to specified quality parameters

Why shouldn‘t we put it all in the same bin
and sort it afterwards?
Key aspects of separate collection of recyclables
41
Aspects related to the technical effort
ØSorting of a residual waste means, per 1 unit of targeted packaging items 6 units of other items needs to be
jointly collected and sorted.
ØSorting of source segregated mixed recyclables means, per 1 unit of targeted packaging items 0,5 units of
other items needs to be jointly collected and sorted.
ØThe number of MRFs to sort residual waste would be six times higher than the number of MRFs to sort source
segregated mixed recyclables
Aspects related to quality issues
ØCross contamination from organics and fibre-polymers (textiles) will go up and cause negativ effects on
- smell and odor content of regranulates
- yield rates of recyclers
- polymer grades of regranulates
ØFood contact application for rPET-bottle loops will be jeopardized, either by law or by quality issues
ØThe range of plastic products will be smaller and after-sort a necessity if packaging is collected with residual
waste from private households

Open Panel Discussion
Michael
Langen
Robert
Corijn
Stuart
Hayward-Higham
Graham
Houlder
Marianne
Kuhlmann
Catharina
Benning

Collection models for flexible packaging in a circular economy: CEFLEX Webinar

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Collection models for flexible packaging in a circular economy: CEFLEX Webinar

Similar to Collection models for flexible packaging in a circular economy: CEFLEX Webinar (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Collection models for flexible packaging in a circular economy: CEFLEX Webinar