Test notes on practical test and demonstration initiatives

Transcription

1 Plastic ZERO - Public Private Cooperations for Avoiding Plastic as a Waste Test notes on practical test and demonstration initiatives 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

2 Table of contents 1 Background Purpose Input material Manual sorting test Automated sorting tests Test Description Results: Veolia Rostock Results: DK Raastoffer Results: Augustin Results: ALBA Results: Steinert Global Discussion Conclusion References Action 4.2 Quality Assurance Done by Marianne Bigum and Line Geest Jakobsen March-July 2014 Quality assured by Mette Skovgaard 22 August 2014 Approved by Susanne Lindeneg 25 August

3 1 BACKGROUND This report presents the test results for sorting technologies for rigid plastic (4 test notes on practical test and demonstration initiatives, deliverable no 30). In line with the overall aim of the Plastic Zero project the purpose of the tests was to obtain information on the degree of sorting of collected household rigid waste plastics and on the costs of sorting and transporting waste plastics. At present (August 2014), there are no sorting facilities for household waste plastics in Denmark so the collected plastics need to be exported for processing. The results of the tests will be included in an evaluation of facilities that could be recipients of the collected household rigid waste plastics from the households in the City of Copenhagen. The information gained will also to be used to suggest possible criteria for tenders to be used by others who want to contract plastic recycling facilities. The tests are assessed in the comparative assessment of the tested technologies (indicator, quantitative deliverable no. 4.4). 2 PURPOSE The purpose of the tests is to: investigate, develop and establish approaches and technologies for recycling of waste plastics, analyse the drivers and barriers for increased plastic recycling, and determine the plastic recovery rates of typical and more innovative plastic recycling facilities. Five sorting facilities have been tested. Each facility received at batch of varying size of the rigid plastics collected from blocks of flats in Copenhagen. Two of these were considered typical sorting facilities (Veolia-Rostock and DK Raastoffer), and two are considered being innovative sorting facilities (Augustin and ALBA) which are supposedly able to achieve an above average recovery rate. The fifth facility, Steinert Global, is a test facility with state-of-the-art NIR technolog. 3 INPUT MATERIAL The rigid waste plastic stream is defined as all kinds of clean containers, bottles, tray, pots of plastic, e.g. from washing and cleaning detergents, trays from fruit and vegetables, empty CD covers, and household products and toys made of plastic. Packaging from hazardous substances is not allowed in the stream. Nor is packaging containing food leftovers. The input material is waste collected through the collection scheme for rigid plastic in blocks of flats in the City of Copenhagen. The photo here gives a picture of the composition. 3

4 FIGURE 1. COLLECTED RIGID WASTE PLASTICS 4 MANUAL SORTING TEST In February 2013, a total of 20 tonnes of rigid plastics had been collected from blocks of flats in Copenhagen since the introduction of the scheme in September A sample of kg of rigid plastics was then sorted manually by a consultancy, Econet. The analysis showed that there is 10.7 % black plastic in the rigid waste plastics collected from blocks of flats in Copenhagen. Black plastics was mainly found in the categories Plastic packaging for food, Other plastic products and Residual composite products where plastic is included. TABLE 1. WASTE PLASTICS FROM BLOCKS OF FLATS IN COPENHAGEN. SAMPLE. KG Category Not black plastic Black plastic Total Packaging food Hereof: PET Household products Films Packaging with hazardous substances Other plastic products Residual: composite products Residual: products with no plastic content Total In percent AUTOMATED SORTING TESTS 5.1 TEST DESCRIPTION Table 2 lists the data that were required for the tests. The requirements focussed primarily on obtaining the necessary data for determining the overall recovery rate of plastics and the plastic types individually, and on determining the fate of the produced outputs (traceability). In addition to this obtaining knowledge on any impurities (both plastic and non-plastic) present in the batch that would hinder recycling and increase the risk of down cycling was also requested. 4

5 TABLE 2. DESIRED DATA FROM THE BATCH TEST 1 Actual batch size (weight) 2 Amount and types of impurities (e.g. foils) and non-plastics in the batch respectively (e.g. other packaging materials paper, metal etc., sand, stones, other) 3 Is the plastic manually sorted prior to the mechanical sorting? If yes, what is removed (the manual sorting criteria used) and what are the respective amounts of the plastic and non-plastic items removed. Also what happens to the removed fractions? 4 Out-sorted fractions (polymer types and amounts respectively), e.g. kg PE, kg PP, etc. 5 Form of the out-sorted fractions (bales, pellets, regrind, flakes etc.) 6 Purity of each out-sorted fraction, e.g. DKR standards, or other standard (e.g. 98/2) 7 Destination of the out-sorted fractions in the cases where it needs further processing until it reaches the form of pellets (sold on international market, reprocessors in Asia, Germany, other) 8 Amount and content (concentration the individual polymer types) of the reject. If the reject contains non-plastics we would like to know the amount of this and a description of what type of items is in this fraction 9 Destination of the reject fraction. What happens to it? e.g. RDF material, recycled as mixed plastic, incineration, landfill 10 If possible, what is the amount of black plastics which cannot be separated by NIR technology in the batch? 11 Any other data you deem relevant to determine the quality of the out-put materials? 12 Feedback on the quality of our plastic. Does our fraction contain plastic items that hinder a high quality recycling? And are there other items you specifically request not to be in the plastic stream (e.g. VHS video tapes)? Also is the plastic cleaned sufficiently or could it even be less clean? From the data from the batch tests three measures was calculated in order for later comparison of the results, see action 4.4 Comparative assessment of the tested sorting technologies. It turned out to be difficult to calculate these measures due to low data quality Direct recovery rate obtained at the facility [%] With direct recovery rate is meant the percent of plastic material which is directly out-sorted as separate plastic types (e.g. PET, PE, and PP respectively) at the facility. Mixed plastic, which would need additional sorting elsewhere, is thus not included in the direct recovery rate Sent for further sorting [%] This includes the mixed plastic, which needs further sorting elsewhere Residual fraction sent directly for incineration [%] The fraction sent for incineration speaks to the level of ambitious recycling taking place at the facility. The residual fraction could consist of other than plastic e.g. misplaced items such as wood or other. This should be taken into account when evaluating the size of the residual fraction, so this represents only the plastic. An evaluation of the content of the reject fractions has however proven hard to obtain. 5.2 RESULTS: VEOLIA ROSTOCK Veolia Rostock was chosen for testing as the existing contractor for recyclable waste management in the City of Copenhagen already uses this facility. It is considered typical a plastic sorting facility. The input is first sorted into three fractions depending on size. The items which are larger than 220 mm are shredded. The residues are sorted out and the remaining plastic is sorted into resins with 16 NIR scanners. Some manual sorting is also present. Table 3 shows the sorting results for the rigid plastics from Copenhagen households obtained from Veolia Rostock in June The results show that the facility sorts out PET, HDPE, PP and LDPE directly at the facility as well as the non-plastic fractions aluminium, ferrous metals and paper and cardboard for recycling. The destination of the mixed plastic fraction is unclear as this information was not 5

6 provided by the facility. Fluff and the residual fractions are considered to be primarily plastic and are incinerated. FIGURE 2. PICTURES FROM THE CITY OF COPENHAGEN S VISIT IN JUNE 2013; SORTING (TOP LEFT), SORTED HDPE (TOP RIGHT), PP (BOTTOM LEFT), AND LDPE (BOTTOM RIGHT) The direct plastic recovery rate obtained at the facility is thus 38% and the fraction of the batch sent directly for incineration amounts to 52%. TABLE 3. TEST RESULTS OBTAINED FROM VEOLIA ROSTOCK JUNE 2013 Veolia Rostock [tonnes] [%] Batch size Output PET (transparent) PET (brown) HDPE PP LDPE Mixed plastic Aluminium Ferrous metals Paper and cardboard Fluff Residual fraction (fine grained) Residual fraction (medium grained) Residual fraction (coarse grained) In total (plastic only) Directly recovered at the facility Sent for further sorting n.a n.a Residual fraction sent directly for incineration Source of data: Marius Pedersen A/S. 6

7 The cost of the batch test, where the value of the recyclable fractions has been deducted, amounted to 809 DKK per tonne or 108 EUR per tonne. 5.3 RESULTS: DK RAASTOFFER DK Raastoffer was chosen for a test as it, at the time of testing, was the only plastic sorting facility in Denmark with NIR technology 1. The facility went bankrupt shortly after the test was conducted. Some manual sorting was required to sort out flexible plastic. The facility had a capacity of 6 tonnes per hour, and had 12 employees. The facility was small why the material was sometimes required to run two times through the facility. The facility did not ordinarily receive waste plastics collected from households, but primarily focused on industrial waste fractions as well as plastic collected via municipal recycling centres. FIGURE 3. DESCRIPTION OF PROCESS 1 The facility was announced bankrupt in June

8 FIGURE 4. FROM THE SORTING AT DK RAASTOFFER Table 4 shows the sorting results obtained from DK Raastoffer in October The results show that the facility sorted PET, HDPE, PP and PE flakes (most likely LDPE) directly at the facility as well as the non-plastic fraction metal for recycling. After sorting the plastic is granulated and sent to a Grüner Punkt facility where it was washed and coloured before sale, primarily in Europe. The destination of the Large items (PO mix) 2 is unclear as this information was not provided by the facility, it is noted as a output fraction for which there is a market, but whether this is as a recyclable fraction or an RDF fraction is stipulated. The fraction mainly consists of black plastic. Two residual fractions were produced which are incinerated. 30% of the residual fraction was estimated to be black plastic and 2-5% of the residual fraction was estimated to consist of other plastic, wood and electronics. The residual fractions are considered to consist of plastic. The direct plastic recovery rate obtained at the facility is thus 40% and the fraction of the batch sent directly for incineration amounts to 53%. The cost of the batch test is unknown. TABLE 4. TEST RESULTS OBTAINED FROM DK RAASTOFFER OCTOBER 2013 DK Raastoffer [tonnes] [%] Batch size Output PET HDPE PE flakes (most likely LDPE) PP Large items (PO mix) Metal Residual fraction Residual fraction (smaller items) Lost In total (plastic only) Directly recovered at the facility Sent for further sorting n.a n.a Residual fraction sent directly for incineration Polyolefin mix consisting of PE and PP. 8

9 5.4 RESULTS: AUGUSTIN The Augustin facility was chosen as one of the facilities to be tested as it is considered to be an innovative facility supposedly able to achieve an above average recovery rate. Table 5 shows the sorting results obtained from Augustin in March The results show that the facility sorts out PET, HDPE, PP and LDPE directly at the facility as well as the non-plastic fractions Tetra pack, aluminium, and ferrous metals for recycling. FIGURE 3. PET (TOP LEFT), PE (TOP RIGHT), PP (BOTTOM LEFT) AND FOILS SORTED (BOTTOM RIGHT) The mixed plastic fraction and the plastic items larger than 300 mm are routed for further sorting. The subsequent recovery rates obtained for these fractions are not stipulated. The plastic string fraction and the residual fractions are considered to be primarily plastic and are incinerated. FIGURE 4. UNIDENTIFIED PLASTIC (LEFT) AND PLASTIC ITEMS LARGER THAN 300 MM (RIGHT), WHICH IS SENT FOR FURTHER SORTING 9

10 FIGURE 5. FILM STRIPS WAS A BIG PROBLEM FOR THE AUGUSTIN FACILITY, AS THEY GOT STUCK IN THE MACHINERY The direct plastic recovery rate obtained at the facility is thus 33% and the fraction of the batch sent directly for incineration amounts to 29%. FIGURE 6. RESIDUAL FRACTION FOR INCINERATION AT CEMENT KILN The cost of the batch test was 147 EUR per tonne incl. transportation. The cost may be lower, if the value of the recyclable materials is included, but that may depend on a more permanent agreement with the facility and has not been included. TABLE 5. TEST RESULTS OBTAINED FROM AUGUSTIN MARCH 2014 Augustin [tonnes] [%] Batch size Output PET bottles HDPE PP LDPE Mixed plastic Plastic items larger than 300 mm Tetrapak Aluminium Ferrous metals Plastic strings (from VHS and tapes) Residual fraction In total (plastic only) Directly recovered at the facility Sent for further sorting Residual fraction sent directly for incineration

11 Source of data: Marius Pedersen A/S. 5.5 RESULTS: ALBA The ALBA facility was chosen as one of the facilities to be tested as it is considered to be an innovative facility supposedly able to achieve an above average recovery rate. A total of 95 tonnes was sorted at the ALBA facility in July The major challenge was video tapes as they blocked the drum screen and caused the operational stops. One person was occupied with the removal of video tapes on a permanent basis. Large plastic items were separated manually in a cabin. Other kinds of challenges were: PVC, paper, wood, textiles, and E-waste. As the first facility in Europe, the ALBA facility in Berlin will have infrared sorting technology for black plastic from late August The black plastic will then be processed at the facility in Eisenhüttenstadt. 11

12 12

13 The direct plastic recovery rate obtained at the facility is thus 43% and the fraction of the batch sent directly for incineration amounts to 28%. The cost was DKK per tonne ( EUR). TABLE 1. TEST RESULTS OBTAINED FROM ALBA JUNE 2014 ALBA [tonnes] [%] Batch size % Output PET % PE % HDPE/PP (buckets and drums) % LDPE - Film clear % LDPE - Film brown % PP % PP black % PS % Mixed plastic % Aluminium % Ferrous metals % SR fein % RDF (Residual fraction) % In total (plastic only) Directly recovered at the facility % Sent for further sorting % Residual fraction sent directly for incineration % Source of data: Marius Pedersen A/S. 13

14 5.6 RESULTS: STEINERT GLOBAL Steinert Global was chosen as one of the technologies to be tested as it is considered to be an innovative facility which can use flake sorting. Flake sorting was though not preformed as it was learned during the visit that as a first sorter it is not necessary to flake, as this would cost too much (as throughput would decrease and compressed air consumption increase). Steinert Global is not a full scale facility, but the technology exists in full scale. For the purpose of testing the demonstration facility has the advantage that more detailed data from the analysis can be obtained. Test setup; A. Overband magnet (Ferrous metals, e.g. steel) UME R B. Eddy current (Non-ferrous metals, e.g. aluminium) NES E C. NIR separation unit (PE) - Unisort PR1000 D. NIR separation unit (PP) - Unisort PR1000 E. NIR separation unit (PET) - Unisort PR1000 FIGURE 7. FLOW MODEL OF THE TEST SETUP Table 2 shows the sorting results for the rigid plastics from Copenhagen households obtained from Steinert Global in July The results show that PET, PE (HDPE and LDPE) and PP were sorted out directly as well as the non-plastic fractions ferrous metals and non-ferrous metals for recycling. 14

15 FIGURE 8. PE (CONSISTING OF BOTH LDPE AND HDPE) FIGURE 9. PP 15

16 FIGURE 10. PET The NIR scanners used in the test facility can sort out other fractions depending on the settings. Additional NIR scanners could sort out more polymers and sort into colours. This off course has to be evaluated against costs. It is the City of Copenhagen s evaluation, from Figure 11, that sorting out PS and PVC could increase the recyclable plastic fraction. What is furthermore interesting is that black plastics can be detected because of the NIR scanners at Steinert scan on fly. The plastic resin can still not be detected though. This means black plastics can be ejected to any fraction wished for, or it can be sorted into a separate fraction. E.g. if it is known that most black plastics is made of HDPE, then all black plastics can be sorted into the HDPE fraction. This would also increase the recyclable fraction, as it is known from the manual test that more than 10% of the plastic is black. FIGURE 11. RESIDUES The batch size was kg with only objects below 400mm, as the test facility could not handle large objects. Any large objects had been sorted out by Marius Pedersen beforehand, see Figure 12. It is assumed the large objects would be 16

17 shredded at other facilities, why the large objects could have been sorted together with the rest of the material. FIGURE 12. OBJECTS LARGER THAN 400MM From a report conducted by Econet (2014) it was found that approximately 24% of the plastic in Copenhagen is above 250mm, why is must be assumed less than 24% was sorted out beforehand. The quality of the large objects is unknown, why it is hard to evaluate if this could have effects on the results, i.e. if the large objects would have been sorted into polymers at the same rates as the results observed below. The cost of the batch test is unknown. TABLE 2. TEST RESULTS OBTAINED FROM STEINERT GLOBAL JULY 2014 Steinert Global [tonnes] [%] Batch size Out-put PET PE (LDPE and HDPE) PP Ferrous metals Non-ferrous metals Residual fraction In total (plastic only) Directly recovered at the facility Sent for further sorting n.a. n.a. Residual fraction sent directly for incineration n.a. n.a. 6 DISCUSSION The tests have been made at three German full-scale facilities, a Danish full-scale facility and a test facility. In the evaluation of the results it is important to remember that the German facilities have been designed according to German standards, i.e. mainly to treat the lightweight packaging waste stream that comprises rigid and flexible plastics, metals and used beverage carton. The buyers of the sorting service, the packaging producer organisations, are obliged to meet the targets in the German Packaging Ordinance, and it will be reflected in the design of the facilities. The facilities in the test separate the standard thermoplastics (PET, HDPE, PP and LDPE). Other plastic types such as PS, PC and PVC are not separated at the facilities and they may not to be recycled unless the mixed plastic fraction is separated further at another facility. 17

18 The rigid plastic waste stream from Copenhagen comprises not just packaging but also other items, e.g. toys, household products, pipes, and items larger than 400 mm in size. PS and PVC are roughly estimated to comprise 6,000 and 4,000 tonnes in the Copenhagen of waste plastics. Small amounts are collected via the recycling stations but it would be logical for citizens to dispose of especially small items via the kerbside collection of rigid plastics. In the photos from the tests we see that large items often seem to pose a challenge to the sorting. The direct recovery rates achieved in the tests are generally low, with the exception of the test facility. Even when including the mixed plastic fraction as 100% recycled, the recycling rate is only around 60-65%. This leads to the fraction direct residual fraction sent for incineration is rather large. The mixed plastic sent for further sorting is often of lower quality and is then sorted once more meaning that not all of the plastic is recycled. The reason is sometimes that the amounts of some specific plastic polymers are too small to be economically viable for the first sorting facility to sort. Metals, paper and used beverage cartons has been separated at the four full scale facilities and amounts to 2-5% of the batch size. These streams will most likely be recycled and are usually included in the facility s overall recovery rate. We would have liked to know the content of the residual fraction and why the materials in the residual fraction were not out sorted. As a result, it is not possible to estimate the efficiency of the facilities. Differences in recovery rates may be explained by the content of the feed material. E.g. one facility could have received a batch with more PET than others could and thus have a higher recovery rate. There is a statistically possibility for this as some of the batch sizes are rather low. The costs of sorting plastics is relatively high ( EUR/tonne) considering the fact that only some 40% of the input material is separated into polymers and another perhaps 20% may end up as low quality recycling. 7 CONCLUSION The actual plastic recovery rates seem to be in the area of 33-43% at a typical plastic recycling facility. The results from the test facility showed a sorting efficiency of 63%. The fraction direct residual fraction sent for incineration is in the area of 29-53% at a typical recycling facility. Much of this ought to be technically recoverable. It is an expense to recycle plastic. 8 REFERENCES Econet, Analyse af plast indsamlet fra etageboliger, Udført for Københavns Kommune, 6. Marts