Technical mass balance results

The amounts of collected municipal solid refuse waste and various types of plastic packaging waste for all seven scenarios have been gathered in Table 54.

The amount of MSRW was kept constant for all scenario’s in 2013, while a small reduction of less than 8% is expected, due to the rise in separately collected PPW. However, at the time of the calculations it was impossible to model these reductions in MSRW per municipality accurately, without introducing erroneous circle-calculations. Therefore, was a first estimation, the amount of MSRW per municipality was kept constant.

Table 54: Overview of the total amounts collected per scenario

Scenario Total MSRW [ton] Total source separation [ton] Total post separation [ton] PET deposit refund system [ton] PPW separated [ton] PPW collected [kg/cap.]

Scenario 1 3,800,000 n.a. n.a. 26,600 26,600 1.6

Scenario 2 3,860,000 83,086 9,514 26,600 119,201 7.2 Scenario 3 3,800,000 100,263 39,758 26,600 166,621 10.0 Scenario 4 3,800,000 114,649 44,581 n.a. 159,230 9.6 Scenario 5 3,800,000 94,651 105,618 26,600 226,869 13.6 Scenario 6 3,800,000 166,013 31,441 26,600 224,054 13.4 Scenario 7 3,800,000 1,038 325,585 n.a. 326,623 19.6

n.a. = not applicable

The data from this table is sourced from databases by CBS, Stichting Nedvang , and own experimental data and estimations by Wageningen UR FBR

The total amounts of separately collected PPW, recovered PPW and collected PET bottles from the deposit-refund system are shown in the table above per category. These contributions to the collection of post-consumer PPW are added together and also presented in amounts collected per inhabitant per year. These amounts are obviously gross amounts, including the contained moisture and attached dirt.

A comparison between the points of reference (scenario 1 and 2) shows that the plastic collection scheme in the Netherlands in 2010 resulted in four times more plastic packaging waste than with only the PET bottle deposit refund system. The base scenario for 2013 (no 3) with only a

moderate maturation of the separate collection system and the recovery system yields already 35% more collected PPW; hence the total PPW collection scheme can be optimised with relatively little effort. The growth originates from the Nedvang part of the system, not from the deposit refund system, which remains stable. The abolishment of the PET bottle deposit refund system (scenario 4) results in a partial shift of the PET bottles to the Nedvang schemes of source

Scenarios study on post-consumer PPW recycling

separation and recovery. With the assumptions we have used, this hardly resulted in a loss of PPW. In case the recovery system is expanded further (scenario 5) and even maximally without separate collection or deposit refund system (scenario 7) the total scheme can grown to a maximum amount of about 20 kg recovered per inhabitant and year. In case the separate collection system is matured to what is expected to be maximal (scenario 6) the total amount of collected PPW is almost equal to what can be expected for the expanded recovery system (scenario 5).

In conclusion, maturation and expansion of the separate collection scheme for PPW and the recovery scheme for PPW can help to raise the amounts of collected PPW. The three collection systems (deposit refund, separate collection and recovery) cannibalise each other, in the sense that an expansion of one of the three systems will automatically result in a lowering of the collection yields of the other systems. Hence, efficiency in PPW collection can best be achieved by lowering the amount of collection systems within the overall scheme.

Collection yields of the separate collection system

Nedvang shared with us detailed response information of each municipality that contributed to the separate collection system, this data is categorised for the urbanisation degree [1-5] and the type of MSRW collection system (with or without a differentiated rate) and for the type of PPW collection system (drop-off versus kerbside). This data clearly shows that in general non-urban communities with a diftar system for the MSRW collection and kerbside collection system will yield the largest responses, see Figure 15.

Figure 15: Responses for the collection of PPW in 2010 in the Netherlands categorised for the

Scenarios study on post-consumer PPW recycling

The amount of recovered PPW at post-separation centres has gradually increased in time. Initially in 2009 both Omrin and Vagron reported separation yields for the recovery of PPW from

MSRW of 2%, whereas the PPW content of the MSRW was roughly 12-15%. Vagron reported separation yields of 4% in 2011 and of 6% in 2012. Omrin reported similar gains in recovery rates. Simultaneous with the improvement in quantity, the quality improved as well, with roughly 70% PPW in the recovered concentrates in 2009 and more than 85% in 2012. The time scales required to optimise the recovery process (machine settings, maintenance, etc.) are apparently several years. Hence, the response of a PPW recovery operation is mostly dependant on the chosen technologies, maintenance and operational execution.

The sorting and reprocessing yields of the separately collected PPW and the recovered PPW differ slightly, due to the differences in composition. Hence, although recovery schemes can collect more material, due to the slightly lower overall sorting and reprocessing yields the

differences between separate collection and recovery are smaller when comparing the amounts of produced milled goods and agglomerates, see Table 55.

Scenarios study on post-consumer PPW recycling

Table 55: Overview of the collected amounts of PPW per scenario and system, the amounts of

sorted recyclable fractions and produced milled goods and agglomerates Scenario System Collected

amounts, [kton]

Sorted recyclable fractions, [kton]

Produced milled goods and agglomerates, [kton] 1 dr 26.6 26.6 22.8 22.8 sc 0 0 0 re 0 0 0 2 dr 26.6 26.6 22.8 79.5 sc 85 65 51 re 9.5 8.7 5.7 3 dr 26.6 26.6 22.8 111.4 sc 100 81 64 re 39.7 37 24.6 4 dr 0 0 0 100.9 sc 114 93 73 re 44.6 42 27.9 5 dr 26.6 26.6 22.8 151.7 sc 95 76 61 re 105.6 101.5 67.9 6 dr 26.6 26.6 22.8 149.7 sc 167 135 107 re 31.7 25.2 19.9 7 dr 0 0 0 213 sc 1.0 0.8 0.67 re 325.6 318 212

Including the amounts of sorted recyclable fractions and produced milled goods and agglomerates. Dr = deposit refund

Sc = separate collection

Re = recovery or post-separation

With the maturation and or expansion of both the source separation or recovery system large increases in the output of recycled milled goods and agglomerates can be achieved. The abolishment of the deposit refund for PET bottles results in higher amounts of material in the separate collection and recovery systems, but the final output of milled goods and agglomerates is slightly lower. This reduction in the amount of produced milled goods and agglomerates is strongly dependant on estimated parameters such as the response rate for the PET bottles and could well turn out to be both higher or lower depending on the precise execution of the

replacing system. In case simultaneous with the abolishment of PET bottle system the collection means for separate collection are extended, the loss of material will turn out to be lower.

Scenarios study on post-consumer PPW recycling

The gains in material that can be reached by maturing the separate collection system and improving the recovery system are roughly ten times larger than the potential losses due to the abolishment of the deposit refund system for PET bottles.