Content of contaminants: non-plastic components and non-targeted plastics

In response to the general agreement among the TWG experts (see previous section) on limiting the content of non-plastic components in plastic that ceases to be waste, it is proposed to include a criterion on the maximum allowable content of non-plastic components in waste plastic. The criterion is connected to the fulfilment of the following objectives, linked to two of the conditions of EoW, namely

1) Existence of a market and a demand for mechanical recycling:

 ensuring that the material is essentially composed of a recyclable material, in this case a targeted plastic polymer (with known amounts of additives) with only a minor content of other non-recyclable materials, and for this reason a valuable input to plastic making,  limiting the risk that the material is not used for other purposes than mechanical

recycling. For waste plastics, the higher risk is that agglomerates and regrind not sufficiently clean (containing high content of impurities in the range of 10-20%, rarely above) are used as energy source in e.g. cement kilns and metal industry.

2) Limitation of the overall environmental impact:

 limiting the amount of rejects that need ulterior waste treatment, as waste treatment has environmental impacts, and it cannot be controlled once it is exported out of the EU.  providing the markets involved in the development of new plastic lumber applications an

indication that despite the high tolerance of plastic lumber applications to the presence of physical impurities (frequently up to 15%, but also above), such applications shall not be used indiscriminately as a long-term and dispersed sink of waste impurities. These waste impurities shall with priority be removed from the plastic, and be treated following the existing waste management systems, including recycling when this is possible. This overall objective has to be seen in the national/regional context of the likely fate of the physical impurities if not embedded in plastic lumber. In some countries, the alternative to lumber may be worse (e.g. disposal), but in others the alternative may have a similar or better overall life-cycle impact (e.g. incineration, or treatment for purification and recycling of the impurities).

The definition of non-plastic components has been discussed in-depth with the technical working group. The definition is in principle based on limiting the content of any material different from the targeted plastic polymer(s) and additives.

According to the comments from TWG experts, of two basic distinct ranges of recyclate output are currently marketed in the EU:

 "Type 1": High quality, most often washed, melt-filtered and granulated/pelletised recycled plastic with a non-plastic component content between 0.1 and 1%. Pre-consumer flakes, or post-consumer washed flakes may also meet these criteria, and the criterion can be exceptionally be met for unwashed material (agglomerates, flakes and regrind), some of which reach prices around 200 EUR/tonne. However, the market value of washed recyclates is often way above 300 EUR/tonne, most of them in the 400-600 EUR/tonne range. These recyclates represent currently some 70-80% of the EU market of recycled plastics (see Table 2.5). They often are able to substitute virgin resins in their applications.

 "Type 2": Agglomerates and regrinds from mixed origin (mostly from post-consumer plastic waste), with high non-plastic component content, often between 5% and 15 %, sometimes more. These materials are only traded to a limited extent due to their low value. These recyclates clearly above 2% impurity content represent currently some 15% of the EU market (see Table 2.5)215_{. The market value of the agglomerates and regrind is}

in most cases way below 200 EUR/tonne, with prices decreasing proportionally to the increasing impurity content. A very commonly traded grade is an unwashed regrind or agglomerate with 10-15% impurities (mostly paper, but also other plastics such as PET and PVC, and 3-4 % ash content from glass, ceramics, metal and stones), which currently has a market value of 90-120 EUR/tonne. Non-washed material with 20% impurities or above has a value of 50-80 EUR/tonne, and is frequently marketed in some regions of the EU as fuel (cement kilns, metal foundries) and not for mechanical recycling.

Recycled output material of "Type 2", while still marketed as agglomerate or regrind – sometimes as non-waste - is normally the outcome of non-thorough cleaning, of a very mixed input material quality, or of a combination of both. This latter material is not suited for substitution of equivalent virgin polymers, and is currently only used in applications with high tolerance to physical impurities, substituting other materials than virgin plastic, such as cement and wood for outdoor furniture and civil works applications. The high impurity tolerance of some of these applications (normally up to 15%, exceptionally above 20%) allows the reprocessors to not be in the need of undertaking further cleaning, as they have already a market for a material that is only partially cleaned. The technology exists for cleaning further, but it does not make economic sense to clean further in order to obtain EoW status, as the material meets already the technical requirements for plastic lumber applications. Further cleaning of these regrind/agglomerates would only increase its costs and the price of the end products. If they were much more expensive, these articles would not find much demand, and the overall benefits of recycling into them would not be met. The most likely consequence if a strict (e.g. 2%) EoW criterion is set is that the recycling of this second group of recyclates would have to take place (or remain taking place) under the waste regime. This would be no novelty in some regions, but it would be subject of concern in regions where reprocessors and authorities (normally municipalities) have already negotiated non-

215 _{an additional 15% of waste plastics is directly used into articles , but this is in most cases shredded unwashed} packaging waste with >15% impurity content, which is directly converted after shredding without any further cleaning or transformation into tradable intermediates

waste status for the recyclate. Reprocessors mention in this regard two elements that may hurdle operation under the waste regime:

1) Some converters may have to request waste licenses. Apparently, this is not much an economic matter (the cost of waste licenses is limited, see section 2.6.2), but a question of image, and a practical reluctance to undergo an additional administrative process. However, the extent of this impact is limited, as most of the affected converters treating "Type 2" recyclates do not deal with high quality recyclates and have already waste licenses, because they combine as input both plastic waste – which they clean themselves- and agglomerates or regrind processed outside, and rarely use as exclusive input regrind or agglomerates pre-processed elsewhere.

2) The perception that not meeting EoW criteria will mean the end of recycling. This is a misunderstanding, as many recyclable materials are traded in the EU for recycling under the waste regime (paper, metals, glass cullet, compost…) and this is no impediment for reaching high recycling rates, some of them up to 70-80%, which is way above current plastic recycling rates. For some of them, also EoW criteria have already been adopted, opening with it an alternative trade option. Moreover, the non- waste condition of the converted articles (plastic lumber furniture, etc.) is not questioned.

The definition of one or more thresholds for limiting the impurity content shall be as simple as possible, and limit to the extent possible additional administrative burden. Any threshold proposed should ideally be at reach for a large part of the recovered waste plastic flow currently used for recycled plastic product making, and perceived by the sector as a raw material, not waste. Only mixed origin plastics used for substitution of non-plastics, e.g. for plastic lumber and similar articles, would need considerable additional efforts to reach the proposed limit values.

However, the threshold should:

 be sufficiently strict to avoid that too contaminated material is classified as non-waste, especially concerning the risk of shipment of non- plastic material out of the EU as part of an end-of-waste consignment or of using it for energy purposes. Only the cleanest material currently used and perceived as raw material should pass.

 not discourage technology development towards producing cleaner material that could fulfil the threshold, to affect the efforts made in the last decades towards increasing waste plastic collection, increased quality in the collected waste plastic, the technologies for use of waste plastic for plastic making, and the demand of recycled plastic products.

 not make EoW a luxury issue only for the benefit of a marginal part of the total plastic flows, and out of reach for the majority of the plastic flow currently perceived and used by the sector as a product.

Based on the arguments above, and the feedback from the TWG, a seemingly suitable threshold of 2% of non-plastic impurities is proposed, valid for all polymer types.

The maximum limit of physical impurities has been discussed intensively with the TWG, both orally and by means of a written consultation. The members of the TWG were

requested to provide opinions and arguments for values between 1.5 and 5%. It can be concluded from the comments that the value proposed represents an operational borderline between the quality obtained after thorough cleaning (washed material, melt-filtration) that is intended for substitution of virgin plastic, and after basic cleaning (dry cleaning and material separation, no filtration, no removal of organic residuals) intended for plastic products that replace other materials such as wood and concrete. The lowest quality fractions (>15% impurity content) are also sometimes bought as a source of energy. Additional technical considerations on why the consultation was restricted to this numeric range are provided in Annex II.

Diverging opinions among the TWG have been registered on what the maximum limit value shall be. A vast majority of Member States representatives, and most business organisations would prefer strict values in the 1-2% range, sometimes even lower, and would grant EoW status only to "Type 1" recyclates. The main reasons are (1) that waste status for 'Type 2" will not jeopardise its recycling, (2) there is too high risk that "Type 2" material can be diverted to non-mechanical recovery applications, most notably incineration in cement kilns and metal works, based on the current market prices, and (3) non-targeted plastics and non-plastics (including additives) are present ion

relatively high proportion, but have a mere filler function, and are not present because of their properties or functionality substituting polymers or additives present in plastic articles made of virgin plastics. Stakeholders also argue to support this that recent international shipping criteria establish a maximum impurity content in this range, e.g. the Chinese GB 16487.12-2005 of 0.5% and the Dutch green list waste export threshold of 2%.

Conversely, a few business associations and individual MS would support a value in the 3-6% range, or even to have no limit at all. The main argument used to support this is the need to be lenient and support existing industrial practice based on mixed material input. These associations argue that if "Type 2" agglomerate material did not qualify for EoW, this would cause a breakdown of the recycling industry. However, there is

evidence of healthy recycling markets operating under the waste regime. It is also observed that unwashed regrind and agglomerates are generally an intermediate product that is rarely traded. This indicates that the argued barriers if the material is waste are rather of image and marketing-related, and technical, environmental, or even economic.

A group of stakeholders has proposed to establish two routes:  The strict limit (2%) is kept for "Type 1" material, as above;

 For "Type 2" material failing to meet this criterion, an additional more lenient limit is established216_{, e.g. 3-6%, but it is additionally requested to provide evidence of the use of}

the recyclate in mechanical recycling. This proposal has been analysed in detail.

The proposal has a number of advantages and disadvantages in terms of potential impacts, which are presented in Chapter 4 (description of impacts). In essence, it would build on the proposal made (2% limit). This safeguards the simplicity of the criterion for

the very pure material (e.g. impurity contents <<1% ), which would therefore not need regular checking of compliance with the 2% limit, as this limit is far above the average content. Very pure recyclates have also market prices much higher than alternative fuels, and are therefore not sought after as energy source by cement kilns, incinerators and the metal industry.

This option would offer an open door for "Type 2" material where there is certainty of mechanical recycling. Therefore, it would be granted only if the producer or importer is able to provide additional evidence of this. Examples of such evidence would be a contract with the mechanical recycler (converter), or a statement from the converter to be attached to the Statement of Conformity that contains as a minimum the following information:

 Contact data of the destination facility: o Name:

o Full address, postcode and country: o Contact person:

o Telephone: o Fax: o E-mail:

 Reference to the load of the consignment, such as a load reference number, or a

description and total amount that allows a 1:1 correlation to the Statement of Conformity.

 Signed declaration from the destination facility that the intended use of the full load of the

material in the consignment is the conversion to articles.

Some members of the TWG have questioned if the continuous measurement of impurity content to check compliance with the 2% threshold may be a too costly burden. As explained below and in the discussion in Annex II, it is probable that the most

demanding sampling effort, and investment in cleaning of plastic, is not driven by the need of reducing the non-plastic component content but is driven by the need of characterising appropriately the non-hazardous condition in order to meet the requirements of product legislation (REACH, CLP and POPs regulations).

It is in the spirit of the criteria proposed that facilities using multi-material sources should have regular non-plastic components testing on output qualifying for EoW.

"Regular" means in this context a statistics-based approach. Normally, the testing of high quality grades (pelletised material) will be minimal, as the average non-plastic

components is in the range of 0.1-0.5% and therefore far from the mentioned threshold. Plastic from homogeneous and pre-consumer sources will require generally a much more modest sampling effort than mixed and post-consumer sources. If the material is not washed and melt-filtered, the frequency of sampling has to be sufficient to be able to detect trends and non-conformities.

Sampling results have to be recorded, kept for the competent authorities and made available on their request. The sampling procedures and calibration methods shall be made available to auditing, e.g. by making them part of quality management procedures such as ISO 9001 that requiring auditing.

3.2.2 Detection of hazardousness and alignment with REACH/CLP/POPs