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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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



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.


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.


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.


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



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.


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.


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.


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)


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.


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).


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.


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


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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)


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.


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 %


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


As a result of the demo-project waste sorting has now been implemented in the

rural areas of the Liepaja Region.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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


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



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.


During the test period 120kg of flexible plastic waste was collected.


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.


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


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.


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%

http://www.kk.dk/

38

4.9 PLASTIC WASTE COLLECTION AND SORTING FOR NEW CONSTRUCTIONS

Demo-Project no. 9

Lead

City of Copenhagen


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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%


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.


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.


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.


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

Collection, Sorting, & Recycling: Collaborative Forums ...

Documents

Transcript of Collection, Sorting, & Recycling: Collaborative Forums ...