Environmental benefi ts of recycling · 2017. 10. 12. · The extended benefits of recycling – life cycle assessment: Appendix 6 Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water

Environmental benefi ts of recycling

Appendix 6 – Plastics

PET, HDPE, PVC, mixed plasticsand rubber tyres

Disclaimer

The Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW has made all reasonable eff orts to ensure that the contents of this document are free from factual error. However, the DECCW shall not be liable for any damage or loss, which may occur in relation to any person taking action or not on the basis of this document.

Published by

Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW59–61 Goulburn StreetPO Box A290Sydney South 1232Ph: (02) 9995 5000 (switchboard)Ph: 131 555 (environment information and publications requests)Ph: 1300 361 967 (national parks information and publications requests)Fax: (02) 9995 5999TTY: (02) 9211 4723Email: [email protected]: www.environment.nsw.gov.au

DECCW 2010/58 ISBN 978 1 74232 530 9June 2010© Copyright Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW June 2010

The Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW is pleased to allow this material to be reproduced in whole or in part, provided the meaning is unchanged and its source, publisher and authorship are acknowledged.

Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW 1

Table of Contents Understanding network diagrams ............................................................................................... 5 PET................................................................................................................................................. 6 Process description...................................................................................................................... 6 A) Kerbside collection system..................................................................................................... 7

Processes considered............................................................................................................ 7 Results................................................................................................................................... 8 Key assumptions ................................................................................................................... 8 Data Quality table and comment .......................................................................................... 10

B) C&I and C&D collection system ........................................................................................... 10 Processes considered.......................................................................................................... 10 Results................................................................................................................................. 10 Key assumptions ................................................................................................................. 11 Data Quality table and comment .......................................................................................... 12

References .................................................................................................................................. 13 Network diagrams — Kerbside collection ...................................................................................... 14 HDPE............................................................................................................................................ 22 Process Description ................................................................................................................... 22 A) Kerbside collection system................................................................................................... 23

Processes considered.......................................................................................................... 23 Results................................................................................................................................. 24 Key assumptions ................................................................................................................. 24 Data Quality table and comment .......................................................................................... 25

B) C&I and C&D collection system ........................................................................................... 26 Processes considered.......................................................................................................... 26 Results................................................................................................................................. 26 Key assumptions ................................................................................................................. 27 Data quality table and comment........................................................................................... 28

References .................................................................................................................................. 29 Network diagrams — Kerbside collection ...................................................................................... 30 Network diagrams — C&I and C&D collection............................................................................... 34 PVC .............................................................................................................................................. 38 Process description.................................................................................................................... 38 A) Kerbside collection system ....................................................................................................... 39

Processes considered.......................................................................................................... 39 Results................................................................................................................................. 40 Key assumptions ................................................................................................................. 40 Data Quality ......................................................................................................................... 41

B) C&I and C&D collection system ........................................................................................... 42 Processes considered.......................................................................................................... 42 Results................................................................................................................................. 42 Key assumptions ................................................................................................................. 42 Data Quality ......................................................................................................................... 43

References .................................................................................................................................. 44 Network diagrams — Kerbside collection ...................................................................................... 45 Network diagrams — C&I and C&D collection............................................................................... 49 Mixed plastics ............................................................................................................................. 53

The extended benefits of recycling – life cycle assessment: Appendix 6


Process description.................................................................................................................... 53 A) Kerbside collection system................................................................................................... 54

Processes considered.......................................................................................................... 54 Results................................................................................................................................. 55 Key assumptions ................................................................................................................. 55 Data quality table and comment........................................................................................... 57

B) C&I and C&D collection system ........................................................................................... 57 Processes considered.......................................................................................................... 57 Results................................................................................................................................. 57 Key assumptions ................................................................................................................. 58 Data quality table and comment........................................................................................... 59

References .................................................................................................................................. 59 Network diagrams — Kerbside collection ...................................................................................... 61 Network diagrams — C&I and C&D collection............................................................................... 65 Rubber tyres................................................................................................................................ 69 Process Description ................................................................................................................... 69

Results................................................................................................................................. 70 Key assumptions ................................................................................................................. 70 Data Quality ......................................................................................................................... 71

References .................................................................................................................................. 72 Network diagrams — C&I and C&D collection............................................................................... 73

List of tables and figures Figure 1: Sample network diagram. ............................................................................................. 5 Figure 2: Processes considered in determining the net impacts of the recycling process

from kerbside and C&I and C&D sources...................................................................... 7 Table 1: Benefits and impacts of recycling of PET from kerbside sources (per tonne) ................ 8 Table 2: Inventory for recycling 1 tonne of PET, from kerbside source ....................................... 8 Table 3: Data quality for life cycle inventory data modelled for recycling and landfilling of

PET from kerbside source (1 tonne) ........................................................................... 10 Table 4: Benefits and impacts of recycling PET from C&I and C&D sources (per tonne) .......... 11 Table 5: Inventory for recycling 1 tonne of PET from C&I and C&D source .............................. 11 Table 6: Data quality for life cycle inventory data modelled for recycling and landfilling of

PET from C&I and C&D source (1 tonne).................................................................... 12 Figure 3: Recycling process network diagram — Green house gases indicator ......................... 14 Figure 4: Recycling process network diagram — Cumulative energy demand indicator ................ 15 Figure 5: Recycling process network diagram — Water indicator .............................................. 16 Figure 6: Recycling process network diagram — Solid waste indicator...................................... 17 Figure 7: Recycling process network diagram — Green house gases indicator ......................... 18 Figure 8: Recycling process network diagram — Cumulative energy demand indicator............. 19 Figure 9: Recycling process network diagram — Water indicator .............................................. 20 Figure 10: Recycling process network diagram — Solid waste indicator...................................... 21 Figure 11: Processes considered in determining the net impacts of the recycling process

from kerbside and C&I and C&D sources.................................................................... 23 Table 7: Benefits and impacts of recycling HDPE from a kerbside source (per tonne) .............. 24 Table 8: Inventory for recycling 1 tonne of HDPE from a kerbside source ................................ 24



Table 9: Data quality for life cycle inventory data modelled for recycling and landfilling of HDPE, kerbside source (1 tonne)................................................................................ 26

Table 10: Benefits and impacts of recycling HDPE from C&I and C&D sources (per tonne) ....... 27 Table 11: Inventory for recycling 1 tonne of HDPE from C&I and C&D source............................ 27 Table 12: Data quality for life cycle inventory data modelled for recycling and landfilling of

HDPE from C&I and C&D source (1 tonne)................................................................. 28 Figure 12: Recycling process network diagram — Green house gases indicator ......................... 30 Figure 13: Recycling process network diagram — Cumulative energy demand indicator............. 31 Figure 14: Recycling process network diagram — Water indicator .............................................. 32 Figure 15: Recycling process network diagram — Solid waste indicator...................................... 33 Figure 16: Recycling process network diagram — Green house gases indicator ......................... 34 Figure 17: Recycling process network diagram — Cumulative energy demand indicator............. 35 Figure 18: Recycling process network diagram — Water indicator .............................................. 36 Figure 19: Recycling process network diagram — Solid waste indicator...................................... 37 Figure 20: Processes considered in determining the net impacts of the recycling process

from kerbside and C&I and C&D sources.................................................................... 39 Table 13: Benefits and impacts of recycling PVC from a kerbside source (per tonne) ................ 40 Table 14: Inventory for recycling of PVC, kerbside source (1 tonne)........................................... 40 Table 15: Data quality for life cycle inventory data modelled for recycling and landfilling of

PVC, kerbside source (1 tonne) .................................................................................. 41 Table 16: Benefits and impacts of recycling PVC from C&I and C&D sources (per tonne).......... 42 Table 17: Inventory for recycling of PVC, C&I, C&D sources (1 tonne) ....................................... 43 Table 18: Data quality for life cycle inventory data modelled for recycling and landfilling of

PVC, kerbside source (1 tonne) .................................................................................. 43 Figure 21: Recycling process network diagram — Green house gases indicator ......................... 45 Figure 22: Recycling process network diagram — Cumulative energy demand indicator............. 46 Figure 23: Recycling process network diagram — Water indicator .............................................. 47 Figure 24: Recycling process network diagram — Solid waste indicator...................................... 48 Figure 25: Recycling process network diagram — Green house gases indicator ......................... 49 Figure 26: Recycling process network diagram — Cumulative energy demand indicator............. 50 Figure 27: Recycling process network diagram — Water indicator .............................................. 51 Figure 28: Recycling process network diagram — Solid waste indicator...................................... 52 Figure 29: Processes considered in determining the net impacts of the recycling process

from kerbside and C&I and C&D sources.................................................................... 54 Table 19: Benefits and impacts of recycling mixed plastics from kerbside sources

(per tonne) .................................................................................................................. 55 Table 20: Inventory for recycling mixed plastics (1 tonne)........................................................... 56 Table 21: Data quality for life cycle inventory data modelled for recycling and landfilling of

mixed plastics, kerbside source .................................................................................. 57 Table 22: Benefits and impacts of recycling mixed plastics from C&I and C&D sources

(per tonne) .................................................................................................................. 58 Table 23: Inventory for recycling mixed plastics (1 tonne)........................................................... 58 Table 24: Data quality for life cycle inventory data modelled for recycling and landfilling of

mixed plastics ............................................................................................................. 59 Figure 30: Recycling process network diagram — Green house gases indicator ......................... 61 Figure 31: Recycling process network diagram — Cumulative energy demand indicator............. 62



Figure 32: Recycling process network diagram — Water indicator .............................................. 63 Figure 33: Recycling process network diagram — Solid waste indicator...................................... 64 Figure 34: Recycling process network diagram — Green house gases indicator ......................... 65 Figure 35: Recycling process network diagram — Cumulative energy demand indicator............. 66 Figure 36: Recycling process network diagram — Water indicator .............................................. 67 Figure 37: Recycling process network diagram — Solid waste indicator...................................... 68 Figure 38: Processes considered in determining the net impacts of the recycling process

from C&I and C&D sources......................................................................................... 70 Table 25: Benefits and impacts of recycling and avoided landfill of waste tyres from C&I and

C&D source (per tonne) .............................................................................................. 70 Table 26: Inventory for recycling waste tyres from C&I and C&D source (1 tonne) ..................... 71 Table 27: Data quality for life cycle inventory data modelled for recycling and landfilling of

waste tyres from C&I and C&D source........................................................................ 72 Figure 39: Recycling process network diagram — Green house gases indicator ......................... 73 Figure 40: Recycling process network diagram — Cumulative energy demand indicator............. 74 Figure 41: Recycling process network diagram — Water indicator .............................................. 75 Figure 42: Recycling process network diagram — Solid waste indicator...................................... 76



0.97 MJAdditional ref inery

processing

0.0834

0.189 MJAustralian av erageelectricity m ix, high

0.0514

0.00136 m 3Petrol, unleaded,

2001-02 AU, -

0.459

0.000516 m 3Crude oil, 2001-02

AU, - energy

0.0741

0.000765 m 3Crude oil, 2001-02

AU, - energy

0.139

0.189 MJElectricity , high

v oltage, Australianav erage 2001-02

0.0514

0.0423 kgF laring - oil & gas

production 2001-02

0.0525

2.53 MJOil & gas production

2001-02 AU, -energy allocation

0.187

6.88 tkmOperation,

transoceanic oil

0.0317

0.00136 m 3Petrol, prem ium

unleaded, 2001-02

0.542

1 kgPetrol, prem ium

unleaded, at

0.544

6.88 tkmShipping, oil

transport

0.0317

Process flow Process name

Cumulative indicator value (kg CO2-eq)

Arrow thickness represents indicator value

Understanding network diagrams This appendix presents the data sources and assumptions used in modelling the life cycle stages. Most of the data is contained and modelled in LCA software and consists of hundreds of individual unit process processes. To help provide transparency on the inventories used for the background processes, process network diagrams are presented. To interpret the process network, start at the top of the tree representing the functional output of the process (e.g. petrol premium unleaded, shown in Figure 1). The amount and unit of the process is shown in the upper number in the unit process box (1kg). The lower number (in the bottom left hand corner) represents an indicator value which, in this case, is set to show cumulative greenhouse gas contributions in kilograms of equivalent carbon dioxide (CO2 eq). The arrow thickness represents the indicator value (the thicker the arrow the more impact that process is contributing). Note that minor processes may not be physically shown in the process network if the indicator value falls below a specific cut-off level, though their contribution to the overall functional unit (the top box in the diagram) is still included. The network diagram may also be truncated at the bottom to improve readability of the networks. Finally, some diagrams may not show the process flows for confidentiality reasons. Some network diagrams will include green process flow arrows. These arrows represent beneficial flows (negative impacts) and are common when viewing recycling processes. In recycling processes, negative cumulative indicator values (lower left hand corner) will typically be associated with avoided processes, such as avoided primary material production and avoided landfill.

Figure 1: Sample network diagram.



PET

Process description Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) is a thermoplastic polymer resin of the polyester family, commonly used as a raw material for the production of packaging. The reprocessing involves shredding of the PET into flakes, followed by the extraction of all contaminants (metal, paper and other plastic materials). The pure PET flakes can then be used as a substitute for virgin PET. The replacement ratio is one to one, after taking into account the losses during sorting and cleaning of used PET.

Two collection systems for PET waste were considered in the model: A) Kerbside collection — municipal collection of PET in commingled from households, and

processing through a Materials Recovery Facility.

B) C&I, C&D collection — the segregated waste collected is sent directly to the reprocessing site without any sorting process, or associated losses.

The unique nature of each collection system drives differences in the impacts associated with PET recycling. For this reason the PET recycling processes considered and impacts generated have been described separately in the following sections, according to the collection method used.

Figure 2 illustrates the processes considered in determining the overall impact of PET recycling from kerbside and C&I and C&D sources (shown to the left of the vertical line), and the processes considered in determining the overall impact of the avoided processes (shown to the right of the vertical line).



Figure 2: Processes considered in determining the net impacts of the recycling process from kerbside and C&I and C&D sources.

Waste collection and transport to

MRF

MRF

Baling of PET

Transport to reprocessor

Reprocessing PET into secondary

material

Transport of waste from sorting to

landfill

Collection and transport of waste

to landfill

Treatment of waste in landfill


Primary production of PET

Recycling process Avoided processes

System Boundary

Modelled for Kerbside sources only


reprocessor

Modelled for CI &CD sources only

A) Kerbside collection system

Processes considered The kerbside collection system involves collection of waste for recycling from the kerbside and transport to a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) which sorts the commingled materials in the recycling stream. The model developed takes into account transportation impacts as well as sorting impacts incurred to bring the material from the kerbside to the material reprocessing facility. During sorting, waste material is generated and transported to landfill.

Once at the reprocessing facility, the model considers the impacts of material reprocessing required to convert the waste material back into usable PET. Losses associated with this process are included in the analysis. The kerbside treatment system is illustrated in Figure 2 (processes unique to kerbside collection shaded accordingly).

In order to determine the net benefit of recycling a material, it is also necessary to consider the processes avoided when recycling is undertaken. Figure 2 also illustrates the processes that would be avoided if waste PET were to be recycled (shown to the right of the vertical line). Two main avoided processes are considered; the collection and disposal to landfill of waste PET from the kerbside, and the primary manufacture of PET from virgin resources.



Results Considering both the recycling process flows and the avoided process flows, described in Figure 2, an inventory of environmental flows was developed. This inventory was then assessed using the Australian Impact Assessment Method, with results described in Table 1.

Table 1: Benefits and impacts of recycling of PET from kerbside sources (per tonne). Benefits are shown negative, impacts are shown positive.

Collection, sorting and reprocessing

Collection and landfill

Primary material

production

Total avoided impacts

Green house gases t CO21.59 -0.24 -2.30 -2.54 -0.95

Cumulative energy demand GJ LHV 20.47 -3.38 -65.53 -68.91 -48.45Water use kL H2O 29.65 -0.03 -9.24 -9.27 20.38Solid w aste tonnes 0.19 -0.95 -0.02 -0.97 -0.78

Net benefits of recycling

Avoided process impacts(Figure 104 - right side)

Impact category Unit

Recycling process impacts

(Figure 104 - left side)

Network diagrams detailing key processes that influence the impacts listed in Table 1 are shown in Figure 3 to Figure 6. For further information regarding interpretation of network diagrams, refer to Understanding Network Diagrams (Figure 1).

Key assumptions Tabel 2 describes the key processes and data sources used to determine the benefits and impacts associated with the collection, recycling and reprocessing of 1 tonne of PET from kerbside source. The table also includes the products and processes avoided when 1 tonne of PET is recycled.

Table 2: Inventory for recycling 1 tonne of PET, from kerbside source

Item Flow Unit Comment

Recycling process flows (Figure 2 — left hand side) Waste collection and transport to

MRF

23.7 m3 Based on PET bulk density of 21.6 m3/tonne plus 10 per cent for other material collected with it but disposed at MRF, Grant (2001a) Transport model for kerbside collection based on Grant (2001b); refer appendices for discussion on transport. Emission of the truck from NGGIC (1997)

Sorting of PET at Material Recovery Facility (MRF)

23.7 m3 Based on PET bulk density of 21.6 m3/tonne plus 2.16 m3 for carrying 10% non recyclables as contamination in collection from Grant (2001a) Energy inputs from Nishtala (1997) and estimated from equipment specifications

Baling of PET 0.9 tonne Estimated loss of 10 per cent at MRF from Grant (2001b) Electricity inputs from Nishtala (1997), 12kWh per tonne.


800 km 35 per cent of HDPE waste sent to Visy Recycling (Melbourne) 800km, from Grant (2001b); articulated truck, 7 tonne load on 30 tonne truck, 90 per cent rural operation Data from urban operation: fuel use data are from Apelbaum (1997). Greenhouse related emissions are based on fuel use with factors taken from NGGIC (1997). Non greenhouse emissions apart from lead are taken from Delft (1996). Data from rural operation: data generated from NGGIC (2004), and EcoInvent for toxic emissions




Recycling process flows (Figure 2 — left hand side) Transport to reprocessor

65 km 50 per cent sent to Coca-Cola (Sydney), 65km assumption (Grant 2001b); Articulated truck, 7 tonne load on 30 tonne truck Fuel use data are from Apelbaum (1997). Greenhouse related emissions are based on fuel use with factors taken from NGGIC (1997). Non greenhouse emissions apart from lead are taken from Delft (1996).


9000 km 15 per cent export to China (Grant, 2001b), 9000km; shipping, international freight Fuel use data are from Apelbaum (1997). Greenhouse related emissions are based on fuel use with factors taken from NGGIC (1997). Non greenhouse emissions apart from lead are taken from Delft (1996).

Reprocessing PET into secondary material

0.9 tonne 10 per cent assumed lost at reprocessing, so process ends up with 0.81 tonne reprocessed PET output. Assumption that reprocessing is similar in the three locations. Input and emissions are an aggregated data from Idemat (1996), Buwal250 and personal communication with Visy staff.

Transport of waste from sorting to landfill

20 km Emissions from transport based on an articulated truck, 28 tonne load on 30 tonne truck. Trucking model developed from data provided by Apelbaum (2001)


0.1 tonne Material discarded at MRF treated in landfill. Emission factors for total plastics from Tellus (1992). Operation to the landfill from a personal communication with S. Middleton, Pacific Waste, NSW, 1998

Avoided process flows (Figure 2 — right hand side) Collection and transport of waste to landfill

27.3 m3 Waste collection avoided by sending material to MRF above. Transport model for kerbside collection based on Grant (2001b); refer appendices for discussion on transport. Emission of the truck from Apelbaum (2001), NGGIC (1997) and other sources.


1 tonne Emission factors for total plastics from Tellus (1992). Operation to the landfill from a personal communication with S. Middleton, Pacific Waste, NSW, 1998

Primary production of PET

0.81 tonne Reprocessing ends up with 0.81 tonne of reprocessed PET thereby avoiding 0.81 tonne of virgin PET production. Data from EcoInvent adapted to Australian context (energy, transport, materials).



Data Quality table and comment Table 3 presents a summary of the data quality for the main processes considered. It shows the data sources used; if they are general data or specific to a company; the age of the data; the geographic location that the data were based on; and, the nature of the technology considered.

Table 3: Data quality for life cycle inventory data modelled for recycling and landfilling of PET from kerbside source (1 tonne)

Primary data source Geography Data

Age Technology Representativeness

Impact of transport

EcoInvent, NGGI, Apelbaum (1997) and Delft (1996) and other sources

European data adapted to Australian conditions and Australian data

2005 Average technology

Mixed data

Reprocessing PET

Aggregated data: Idemat Buwal250 and Visy

Australia 2004 Unspecified Unspecified

Avoided PET production

Adapted from Ecoinvent

European data adapted to Australian conditions

2005 Unspecified Unspecified

Avoided landfill impacts

Tellus Institute Australia 1999 Unspecified Mixed Data

B) C&I and C&D collection system

Processes considered In the case of the C&I and C&D collection system, it has been assumed that segregated waste collected is sent directly to the reprocessing site without any sorting process, or associated losses. The model developed takes into account transportation impacts incurred to bring the material from C&I and C&D sources to the material reprocessing facility.

Once at the reprocessing facility, the model considers the impacts of material reprocessing required to convert the waste material into secondary PET. Losses associated with this process are included in the analysis. The model also illustrates the processes considered in determining the impact of the processes avoided when recycling PET from C&I and C&D sources. Three main processes are considered, the collection of PET waste and landfill treatment, and the primary manufacture of PET from virgin resources. The system is also described in Figure2 (processes unique to C&I,C&D collection are shaded accordingly).




Table 4: Benefits and impacts of recycling PET from C&I and C&D sources (per tonne)

Collection, sorting and

reprocessing


Primary material

production



Cumulative energy demand GJ LHV 17.46 -0.13 -72.81 -72.94 -55.49Water use kL H2O 32.83 0.00 -10.27 -10.27 22.56Solid w aste tonnes 0.20 -0.95 -0.02 -0.97 -0.77

Avoided process impacts(Figure 104 - right side) Net benefits of

recyclingImpact category Unit



Network diagrams detailing key processes that influence the impact listed in Table 4 are shown in Figure 7 to Figure 10. For further information regarding interpretation of network diagrams, refer to Understanding Network Diagrams (Figure 1).

Key assumptions Table 5 describes the key processes and data sources used to determine the benefits and impacts associated with the collection, recycling and reprocessing of 1 tonne of PET. The table also includes the products and processes avoided when 1 tonne of PET is recycled.

Table 5: Inventory for recycling 1 tonne of PET from C&I and C&D source


Recycling process flows (Figure 2 — left hand side) Collection of material for recycling

20 km 20km distance estimate based on a simplified transport analysis for Sydney; refer appendices for discussion on transport. Emissions from transport based on a trucking model developed by the Centre for Design, incorporating trucking data from Apelbaum (2001) and other sources. Truck backhaul ratio assumed to be 1:2.

Transport to reprocessing

9000 km 15% export to China (Grant, 2001), 9000km; shipping, international freight Fuel use data are from Apelbaum (1997). Greenhouse related emissions are based on fuel use with factors taken from NGGIC (1997). Non greenhouse emissions apart from lead are taken from Delft (1996).


65 km 50 per cent sent to Coca-Cola (Sydney), 65km assumption (Grant 2001b) Fuel use data are from Apelbaum (1997). Greenhouse related emissions are based on fuel use with factors taken from NGGIC (1997). Non greenhouse emissions apart from lead are taken from Delft (1996).


800 km 35 per cent of HDPE waste sent to Visy Recycling (Melbourne) 800km, from Grant (2001b) Data from urban operation: fuel use data are from Apelbaum (1997). Greenhouse related emissions are based on fuel use with factors taken from NGGIC (1997). Non greenhouse emissions apart from lead are taken from Delft (1996). Data from rural operation: data generated from NGGIC (2004), and EcoInvent for toxic emissions



Item Flow Unit Comment PET reprocessing

1 tonne 10 per cent assumed lost at reprocessing, so process ends up with 0.9 tonne reprocessed PET output. Assumption that reprocessing is similar in the three locations. Input and emissions are an aggregated data from Idemat (1996), Buwal250 and personal communication with Visy staff.




0.1 tonne Assumed reject rate from reprocessing. Emission factors for total plastics from Tellus (1992). Operation to the landfill from a personal communication with S. Middleton, Pacific Waste, NSW, 1998


20 km Emissions from transport based on an articulated truck, 28 tonne load on 30 tonne truck. Trucking model developed from data provided by Apelbaum (2001). Refer appendices for transport discussion.

Landfill of PET 1 tonne Emission factors for total plastics from Tellus (1992). Operation to the landfill from a personal communication with S. Middleton, Pacific Waste, NSW, 1998

PET 0.9 tonne Reprocessing ends up with 0.9 tonne of reprocessed PET thereby avoiding 0.9 tonne of virgin PET production. Data from EcoInvent adapted to Australian context (energy, transport, materials).

Data Quality table and comment Table 6 describes the key processes and data sources used to determine the benefits and impacts associated with the recycling of 1 tonne of PET from C&I and C&D sources. The table also includes the products and processes avoided when 1 tonne of PET is recycled.

Table 6: Data quality for life cycle inventory data modelled for recycling and landfilling of PET from C&I and C&D source (1 tonne)

Primary data source Geography Data Age Technology Representativeness

Impact of transport

Apelbaum consulting group (2001)

Australia 2001 Average Average from all suppliers

Transportation distances

Estimate Sydney 2009 Average Estimate based on simple radial transport model

Reprocessing PET

Aggregated data: Idemat Buwal250 and Visy

Australia 2004 Unspecified Unspecified

Avoided PET production

Adapted from Ecoinvent


2005 Unspecified Unspecified





References Apelbaum Consulting Group (2001), Australian Transport facts 2001 Tables in Excel Format, Blackburn, Victoria.

Apelbaum (1997), Australian Transport Task, Energy consumed and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Voluma A, Summary of findings

BUWAL 250 (1996), Ökoinventare für Verpackungen, Schriftenreihe Umwelt 250, Bern

Delft University of Technology (1996), data from the Section for Environmental Product Development, Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, The Netherlands

Grant, T., James, K., Lundie, S., Sonneveld, K., (2001a), Life Cycle Assessment for Paper and Packaging Waste Management Scenarios in Victoria, EcoRecycle, Melbourne

Grant, T., James, K.L., Lundie, S., Sonneveld, K., Beavis, P. (2001b), Report for Life Cycle Assessment for Paper and Packaging Waste Management Scenarios in New South Wales, NSW Environment Protection Authority, Sydney

IDEMAT Software (1996), Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Jaffalaan 9, 2628 BX Delft, The Netherlands

National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Committee (1997), National Greenhouse Gas Inventory, with methodology supplements, Australian Greenhouse Office.


Nishtala, S., Solano-Mora, E., (1997), Description of the Material Recovery Facilities Process Model: Design, Cost, and Life-Cycle Inventory, Research Triangle Institute and North Carolina State University

Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories. (2004). "EcoInvent Database version 1.01." from http://www.ecoinvent.ch/en/index.htm

Tellus Packaging Study (1992), Assessing the impacts of production and disposal of packaging and public policy measure to alter its mix, Tellus Institute, USA

Wang, F. (1996). Solid Waste Integrated Management Model. PhD Thesis in the Department of Chemical and Metallurgical Engineering. Melbourne, RMIT.



Network diagrams — Kerbside collection

Figure 3: Recycling process network diagram — Green house gases indicator. Processes contributing less than 5 per cent to total are not shown. Major processes from results table above are shown shaded. �

-992 MJ

�

MJel PET 97a Model

�

-0.176 t CO2e

�

2.37E3 MJ

�

Electricity, high

�

voltage , Australian

�

average /AU U

�

0.645 t CO2e

�

563 kg

�

Caustic soda/AU U

�

0.636 t CO2e

�

- 1.19E4 s

�

Collecting

�

Garbage /AU U

�

- 0.168 t CO2e

�

1.29E4 s

�

Collecting

�

Recyclables/AU U

�

0.204 t CO2e

�

-1.11E3 kg

�

Crude oil, Australian

�

average /AU U

�

-0.294 t CO2e

�

528 MJ

�

Electricity, high

�

voltage , Eastern

�

Australian /AU U

�

0.154 t CO2e

�

2.37E3 MJ

�

Electricity, high

�


�

average ,

�

0.645 t CO2e

�

528 MJ

�

Electricity, high

�

voltage , Eastern

�

Australian ,

�

0.154 t CO2e

�

878 MJ

�

Electrictiy black coal

�

NSW, sent out/AU U

�

0.239 t CO2e

�

645 MJ

�


�

QLD, sent out/AU U

�

0.172 t CO2e

�

700 MJ

�

Electricity brown coal

�

Victoria , sent out/AU U

�

0.257 t CO2e

�

- 3.01E3 MJ

�

Energy , from

�

diesel/AU U

�

-0.252 t CO2e

�

- 4.44E3 MJ

�

Energy , from fuel

�

oil/AU U

�

-0.371 t CO2e

�

-3.33E3 MJ

�

Energy , from fuel oil ,

�

just fuel, CO2,CH4, &

�

N2O/AU U

�

- 0.257 t CO2e

�

2.7E3 MJ

�

Energy , from natural

�

gas/AU U

�

0.158 t CO2e

�

-169 kg

�

Ethene- cat.crack/AU U

�

-0.289 t CO2e

�

- 482 kg

�

Interm. benzene/AU U

�

- 0.825 t CO2e

�

-273 kg

�

Etheneglycol /AU U

�

-0.478 t CO2e

�

900 kg

�

Extrusion of PET /AU U

�

0.132 t CO2e

�

5.63E4 kg

�

Hot Water 80C/AU U

�

0.207 t CO2e

�

-649 MJ

�

Electricity into

�

imported PET /GLO

�

-0.147 t CO2e

�

- 5.49E3 MJ

�

Energy , PET

�

production/AU U

�

-0.448 t CO2e

�

- 485 kg

�

P-xylene /AU U

�

- 0.929 t CO2e

�

900 kg

�

PET reprocessing /AU

�

U

�

1.12 t CO2e

�

1.29E4 s

�

Recycling Truck

�

( packwaste )/AU U

�

0.204 t CO2e

�

5.63E4 kg

�

Reuse of water in

�

HDPE line /AU U

�

- 0.639 t CO2e

�

- 710 kg

�

Terephtalic acid /AU U

�

- 1.15 t CO2e

�

- 741 kg

�

Refinery products , at

�

consumer/AU U

�

- 0.513 t CO2e

�

-632 kg

�

Polyethylene

�

terephthalate,

�

granulate , amorphous ,

�

-1.69 t CO2e

�

- 0.916 m3

�

Refining other refinery

�

products/AU U

�

- 0.26 t CO2e

�

-0.905 m3

�

Crude oil,

�

imported /GLO U

�

-0.213 t CO2e

�

-1.32 m3

�

Crude oil exploration

�

and extraction /AU U

�

-0.259 t CO2e

�

23.7 m3

�

Recycling Coll &Tran

�

(Syd Met )/AU U

�

0.28 t CO2e

�

- 23.7 m3

�

Garbage Coll &Tran

�

(Syd Met )/AU U

�

- 0.232 t CO2e

�

1E3 kg

�

PET ( kerb ) - Collect &

�

reprocess

�

1.59 t CO2e

�1E3 kg

�

PET ( kerb ) - Net

�

benefit of recycling

�

-0.951 t CO2e

�

-810 kg

�

Primary PET

�

production

�

-2.3 t CO2e

�

-1E3 kg

�

Landfill PET , kerbside

�

sources

�

- 0.236 t CO2e

�

-1E3 kg

�

landfill of PET from

�

kerbside

�

- 0.236 t CO2e



Figure 4: Recycling process network diagram — Cumulative energy demand indicator. Processes contributing less than 4 per cent to total are not shown. Major processes from results table above are shown shaded. �

-63.2 kg

�

Acetic acid/AU U

�

- 3.26 GJ LHV

�

2.37E3 MJ

�

Electricity, high

�


�

average /AU U

�

6.74 GJ LHV

�

563 kg

�

Caustic soda/AU U

�

6.68 GJ LHV

�

1.29E4 s

�

Collecting

�

Recyclables /AU U

�

2.92 GJ LHV

�

-1.11E3 kg

�

Crude oil, Australian

�

average /AU U

�

-49.8 GJ LHV

�

-73.4 kg

�

Diesel, at

�

consumer/AU U

�

- 3.96 GJ LHV

�

2.37E3 MJ

�

Electricity, high

�


�

average ,

�

6.74 GJ LHV

�

-3.01E3 MJ

�

Energy , from

�

diesel/AU U

�

- 3.95 GJ LHV

�

-4.44E3 MJ

�

Energy , from fuel

�

oil/AU U

�

- 5.64 GJ LHV

�

- 3.33E3 MJ

�

Energy , from fuel oil,

�

just fuel, CO2,CH4, &

�

N2O/AU U

�

-3.91 GJ LHV

�

2.7E3 MJ

�


�

gas /AU U

�

2.78 GJ LHV

�

-169 kg

�

Ethene- cat.crack/AU U

�

-11.7 GJ LHV

�

-482 kg

�

Interm . benzene/AU U

�

-33.4 GJ LHV

�

-273 kg

�

Etheneglycol /AU U

�

-14.9 GJ LHV

�

- 214 kg

�

Fuel oil, at

�

consumer/AU U

�

- 10.2 GJ LHV

�

5.63E4 kg

�

Hot Water 80C/AU U

�

3.59 GJ LHV

�

-5.49E3 MJ

�

Energy , PET

�

production /AU U

�

- 6.71 GJ LHV

�

-485 kg

�

P- xylene /AU U

�

-36.1 GJ LHV

�

900 kg

�


�

U

�

14 GJ LHV

�

1.29E4 s

�

Recycling Truck

�

( packwaste )/AU U

�

2.92 GJ LHV

�

5.63E4 kg

�

Reuse of water in

�

HDPE line /AU U

�

-6.71 GJ LHV

�

- 710 kg

�


�

- 42 GJ LHV

�

-741 kg

�


�

consumer /AU U

�

-41.1 GJ LHV

�

-632 kg

�

Polyethylene

�

terephthalate,

�

granulate , amorphous ,

�

-49.6 GJ LHV

�

-0.916 m3

�


�

products /AU U

�

-3.95 GJ LHV

�

-0.418 m3

�

Crude oil,

�

domestic/AU U

�

-15.3 GJ LHV

�

- 0.905 m3

�

Crude oil ,

�

imported/GLO U

�

- 34.6 GJ LHV

�

23.7 m3

�


�

( Syd Met )/ AU U

�

4.02 GJ LHV

�

- 23.7 m3

�

Garbage Coll &Tran

�

(Syd Met )/AU U

�

- 3.32 GJ LHV

�

1E3 kg

�

PET (kerb ) - Collect &

�

reprocess

�

20.5 GJ LHV

�1E3 kg

�

PET (kerb ) - Net

�


�

- 48.4 GJ LHV

�

-810 kg

�

Primary PET

�

production

�

-65.5 GJ LHV

�

-1E3 kg

�


�

sources

�

- 3.38 GJ LHV

�

-1E3 kg

�


�

kerbside

�

- 3.38 GJ LHV



Figure 5: Recycling process network diagram — Water indicator. Processes contributing less than 1 per cent to total are not shown. Major processes from results table above are shown shaded. �

2.37E3 MJ

�

Electricity, high

�

voltage, Australian

�

average/AU U

�

1.02 kL H2O

�

563 kg

�

Caustic soda/AU U

�

1.15 kL H2O

�

2.37E3 MJ

�

Electricity, high

�

voltage, Australian

�

average,

�

1.02 kL H2O

�

5.63E4 kg

�

Hot Water 80C/AU U

�

56.3 kL H2O

�

900 kg

�

PET reprocessing/AU

�

U

�

29.5 kL H2O

�

5.63E4 kg

�

Reuse of water in

�

HDPE line/AU U

�

-29.3 kL H2O

�

2.81E4 kg

�

Water (delivered)/AU

�

U

�

28.1 kL H2O

�

-632 kg

�

Polyethylene

�

terephthalate,

�

granulate, amorphous,

�

-4.97 kL H2O

�

1E3 kg

�

PET (kerb) - Collect &

�

reprocess

�

29.6 kL H2O

�1E3 kg

�

PET (kerb) - Net

�


�

20.4 kL H2O

�

-810 kg

�

Primary PET

�

production

�

-9.24 kL H2O



Figure 6: Recycling process network diagram — Solid waste indicator. Processes contributing less than 1 per cent to total are not shown. Major processes from results table above are shown shaded. �

-992 MJ

�

MJel PET 97a Model

�

-0.011 tonnes

�

2.37E3 MJ

�

Electricity, high

�


�

average /AU U

�

0.0256 tonnes

�

563 kg

�

Caustic soda/AU U

�

0.0547 tonnes

�

2.37E3 MJ

�

Electricity, high

�


�

average ,

�

0.0256 tonnes

�

878 MJ

�


�

NSW, sent out/AU U

�

0.0152 tonnes

�

900 kg

�


�

0.037 tonnes

�

42 kg

�

Fly ash

�

processing //AU U

�

0.0252 tonnes

�

900 kg

�


�

U

�

0.093 tonnes

�

5.63E4 kg

�

Reuse of water in

�

HDPE line /AU U

�

-0.0548 tonnes

�

- 632 kg

�

Polyethylene

�

terephthalate ,

�

granulate , amorphous,

�

-0.0117 tonnes

�

100 kg

�

Landfill inert waste

�

0.1 tonnes

�

1E3 kg

�

PET ( kerb ) - Collect &

�

reprocess

�

0.195 tonnes

�1E3 kg

�

PET ( kerb ) - Net

�


�

-0.776 tonnes

�

-810 kg

�

Primary PET

�

production

�

-0.0205 tonnes

�

- 1E3 kg

�


�

sources

�

-0.95 tonnes

�

- 1E3 kg

�


�

kerbside

�

-0.95 tonnes



Network diagrams — C&I and C&D collection


-1.1 E3 MJ

�

MJel PET 97a Model

�

-0.195 t CO2 e

�

- 497 MJ

�

MJel oil AU

�

-0.112 t CO2 e

�

280 tkm

�

Articulated Truck , 7

�

tonne load on 30

�

tonne truck , 90% rural

�

0 .107 t CO2e

�

2.51 E3 MJ

�

Electricity , high

�


�

average /AU U

�

0 .682 t CO2e

�

625 kg

�

Caustic soda /AU U

�

0 .706 t CO2e

�

-1.26 E3 kg

�

Crude oil , Australian

�

average /AU U

�

- 0.333 t CO2e

�

549 MJ

�

Electricity , high

�

voltage , Eastern

�

Australian /AU U

�

0 .16 t CO2 e

�

2.51 E3 MJ

�

Electricity , high

�


�

average ,

�

0 .682 t CO2e

�

549 MJ

�

Electricity , high

�

voltage , Eastern

�

Australian ,

�

0 .16 t CO2 e

�

922 MJ

�


�

NSW, sent out /AU U

�

0.251 t CO2 e

�

678 MJ

�


�

QLD , sent out /AU U

�

0.18 t CO2e

�

735 MJ

�


�

Victoria , sent out /AU U

�

0 .27 t CO2 e

�

-320 MJ

�

Electrictiy oil ( internal

�

combustion ) sent

�

out /AU U

�

-0 .105 t CO2e

�

- 3.38 E3 MJ

�

Energy , from

�

diesel /AU U

�

- 0.283 t CO2e

�

-4.94 E3 MJ

�

Energy , from fuel

�

oil/AU U

�

-0 .413 t CO2e

�

- 3.78 E3 MJ

�


�

just fuel , CO2 ,CH4, &

�

N2O/AU U

�

- 0.291 t CO2e

�

2 .97E3 MJ

�


�

gas /AU U

�

0.174 t CO2 e

�

- 188 kg

�

Ethene -cat.crack /AU

�

U

�

-0 .321 t CO2e

�

-535 kg

�

Interm . benzene /AU U

�

- 0.917 t CO2e

�

- 303 kg

�

Etheneglycol /AU U

�

-0 .531 t CO2e

�

1E3 kg

�


�

0 .147 t CO2e

�

-241 kg

�

Fuel oil , at

�

consumer /AU U

�

-0 .141 t CO2e

�

1E3 kg

�

Gas drying of washed

�

plastics /AU U

�

0.131 t CO2 e

�

6.25 E4 kg

�

Hot Water 80 C/AU U

�

0.23 t CO2e

�

-721 MJ

�

Electricity into

�

imported PET /GLO

�

-0 .164 t CO2e

�

-6.09 E3 MJ

�

Energy , PET

�

production /AU U

�

-0 .498 t CO2e

�

-539 kg

�

P- xylene /AU U

�

- 1.03 t CO2e

�

1E3 kg

�


�

U

�

1.25 t CO2e

�

6.25 E4 kg

�

Reuse of water in

�

HDPE line /AU U

�

- 0.71 t CO2e

�

-660 kg

�

Steam , from natural

�

gas , in kg /AU U

�

-0 .143 t CO2e

�

-789 kg

�


�

- 1.28 t CO2e

�

-823 kg

�


�

consumer /AU U

�

- 0.57 t CO2e

�

-702 kg

�

Polyethylene

�

terephthalate ,

�

granulate ,

�

- 1.88 t CO2e

�

- 1.02 m3

�


�

products /AU U

�

- 0.289 t CO2e

�

- 1.03 m3

�

Crude oil ,

�

imported /GLO U

�

- 0.242 t CO2e

�

- 1.5 m 3

�


�


�

- 0.293 t CO2e

�

- 900 kg

�

Primary PET

�

production

�

-2 .56 t CO2 e

�1E3 kg

�

PET ( CI & CD) - Net

�


�

- 1.18 t CO2e

�

1E3 kg

�

PET (CI & CD) -

�

Collect & reprocess

�

1 .38 t CO2 e




-70 .2 kg

�

Acetic acid /AU U

�

- 3.62 GJ LHV

�

2.51 E3 MJ

�

Electricity , high

�


�

average /AU U

�

7.13 GJ LHV

�

625 kg

�

Caustic soda /AU U

�

7.43 GJ LHV

�

- 1.26 E3 kg

�


�

average /AU U

�

- 56.4 GJ LHV

�

- 103 kg

�

Diesel , at

�

consumer /AU U

�

- 5.55 GJ LHV

�

2.51 E3 MJ

�

Electricity , high

�


�

average ,

�

7.13 GJ LHV

�

-3 .38E3 MJ

�

Energy , from

�

diesel /AU U

�

- 4.43 GJ LHV

�

-4.94 E3 MJ

�

Energy , from fuel

�

oil /AU U

�

-6.28 GJ LHV

�

- 3.78 E3 MJ

�


�

just fuel , CO2,CH4, &

�

N2 O/AU U

�

-4.43 GJ LHV

�

2.97 E3 MJ

�


�

gas /AU U

�

3 .05 GJ LHV

�

-188 kg

�

Ethene - cat.crack /AU

�

U

�

-13 GJ LHV

�

- 535 kg

�

Interm . benzene /AU U

�

- 37.1 GJ LHV

�

-303 kg

�

Etheneglycol /AU U

�

-16 .5 GJ LHV

�

-241 kg

�

Fuel oil , at

�

consumer /AU U

�

-11 .4 GJ LHV

�

6.25 E4 kg

�

Hot Water 80 C/AU U

�

3 .99 GJ LHV

�

-6.09 E3 MJ

�

Energy , PET

�

production /AU U

�

-7.45 GJ LHV

�

- 539 kg

�

P-xylene /AU U

�

- 40.1 GJ LHV

�

1 E3 kg

�


�

U

�

15.5 GJ LHV

�

6.25 E4 kg

�

Reuse of water in

�

HDPE line /AU U

�

-7 .46 GJ LHV

�

- 789 kg

�


�

- 46.7 GJ LHV

�

-823 kg

�


�

consumer /AU U

�

-45 .7 GJ LHV

�

- 702 kg

�

Polyethylene

�

terephthalate ,

�

granulate ,

�

- 55.1 GJ LHV

�

- 1.02 m3

�


�

products /AU U

�

-4.39 GJ LHV

�

-0 .474 m3

�

Crude oil ,

�

domestic /AU U

�

- 17.3 GJ LHV

�

-1 .03 m 3

�

Crude oil ,

�

imported /GLO U

�

- 39.3 GJ LHV

�

- 900 kg

�

Primary PET

�

production

�

- 72.8 GJ LHV

�1 E3 kg

�

PET (CI & CD) - Net

�


�

-55 .5 GJ LHV

�

1 E3 kg

�

PET (CI & CD) -

�

Collect & reprocess

�

17.5 GJ LHV




2 .51E3 MJ

�

Electricity , high

�


�

average /AU U

�

1.08 kL H 2O

�

625 kg

�

Caustic soda /AU U

�

1.28 kL H 2O

�

2 .51E3 MJ

�

Electricity , high

�


�

average ,

�

1.08 kL H 2O

�

6 .25E4 kg

�

Hot Water 80C/AU U

�

62.5 kL H2O

�

1E3 kg

�


�

U

�

32.8 kL H 2O

�

6 .25E4 kg

�

Reuse of water in

�

HDPE line /AU U

�

-32.5 kL H2O

�

3 .13E4 kg

�

Water (delivered )/AU

�

U

�

31.3 kL H2O

�

-702 kg

�

Polyethylene

�

terephthalate ,

�

granulate ,

�

-5 .53 kL H2O

�

-900 kg

�

Primary PET

�

production

�

-10.3 kL H2O

�1E3 kg

�

PET (CI & CD) - Net

�


�

22.6 kL H2O

�

1E3 kg

�

PET (CI & CD) -

�

Collect & reprocess

�

32.8 kL H 2O




-1 .1E3 MJ

�

MJel PET 97a Model

�

-0.0122 tonnes

�

2 .51E3 MJ

�

Electricity , high

�


�

average /AU U

�

0.0271 tonnes

�

625 kg

�

Caustic soda /AU U

�

0.0608 tonnes

�

2 .51E3 MJ

�

Electricity , high

�


�

average ,

�

0.0271 tonnes

�

922 MJ

�


�

NSW, sent out /AU U

�

0.016 tonnes

�

1E3 kg

�


�

0 .0411 tonnes

�

44.1 kg

�

Fly ash

�

processing //AU U

�

0.0265 tonnes

�

1E3 kg

�


�

U

�

0 .103 tonnes

�

6.25E4 kg

�

Reuse of water in

�

HDPE line /AU U

�

-0.0609 tonnes

�

-702 kg

�

Polyethylene

�

terephthalate ,

�

granulate ,

�

-0 .013 tonnes

�

-1E3 kg

�


�

C&I and C &D

�

-0.95 tonnes

�

100 kg

�


�

0.1 tonnes

�

-900 kg

�

Primary PET

�

production

�

-0.0228 tonnes

�

-1E3 kg

�

Landfill PET , CI & CD

�

sources

�

-0.95 tonnes

�1E3 kg

�

PET (CI & CD) - Net

�


�

-0 .769 tonnes

�

1E3 kg

�

PET (CI & CD) -

�

Collect & reprocess

�

0 .203 tonnes



HDPE

Process Description High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) is a semi-crystalline polymer that can be recognized by its opaque appearance. Chemical resistance is good and can be improved further by surface treatment such as sulfonation or fluorination, or by co-extruding plastics with higher barrier properties. HDPE is commonly used for the manufacture of packaging.

In this recycling process model, HDPE is assumed to be washed and ground into granulate. This granulate can then be used as a substitute for virgin HDPE.

Two collection systems for waste HDPE were considered in the model: A) A) Kerbside collection — municipal collection of HDPE in commingled from households,

and processing through a Materials Recovery Facility

B) B) C&I, C&D collection — segregated waste collected is sent directly to the reprocessing site without any sorting process, or associated losses

The unique nature of each collection system drives differences in the impacts associated with HDPE recycling. For this reason the HDPE recycling processes considered, and impacts generated, have been described separately in the following sections, according to the collection method used.

Figure 11 illustrates the processes considered in determining the overall impact of HDPE recycling from kerbside and C&I and C&D sources (shown to the left of the vertical line), and the processes considered in determining the overall impact of the avoided processes (shown to the right of the vertical line).





MRF

MRF

Sorting of HDPE at Visy facility


Reprocessing HDPE into secondary

material


landfill


to landfill



Primary production of

HDPE


System Boundary



reprocessor


Baling of HDPE


landfill



Processes considered The kerbside collection system involves collection of waste for recycling from the kerbside and transport to a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF), which sorts the commingled materials in the recycling stream. The model developed takes into account transportation impacts as well as sorting impacts incurred to bring the material from the kerbside to the material reprocessing facility. During sorting, waste material is generated and transported to landfill.

Once at the reprocessing facility, the model considers the impacts of material reprocessing required to convert the waste material into secondary HDPE products. Losses associated with this process are included in the analysis. The kerbside treatment system is illustrated in Figure 11 (unique system processes shaded accordingly).

In order to determine the net benefit of recycling a material, it is also necessary to consider the processes avoided when recycling is undertaken. Figure 11 also illustrates the processes that would be avoided if HDPE waste were to be recycled (shown to the right of the vertical line). Two



main avoided processes are considered; the collection and disposal to landfill of HDPE waste from the kerbside, and the primary manufacture of HDPE from virgin resources.


Table 7: Benefits and impacts of recycling HDPE from a kerbside source (per tonne). Benefits are shown negative, impacts are shown positive.



Primary material

production










Key assumptions Table 8 describes the key processes and data sources used to determine the benefits and impacts associated with the collection, recycling and reprocessing of 1 tonne of HDPE. The table also includes the products and processes avoided when 1 tonne of HDPE is recycled.

Table 8: Inventory for recycling 1 tonne of HDPE from a kerbside source


Process flows (Figure 11 — left hand side) Waste collection and transport to

MRF

30.4 m3 27.6 m3 per tonne + 2.76 m3 for carrying 10 per cent non recyclables as contamination in collection, from Grant (2001a) Transport model for kerbside collection based on Grant (2001b), refer appendices for discussion on transport. Emission of the truck from NGGIC (1997)

Sorting of HDPE at Material Recovery Facility (MRF)

30.4 m3 27.6 m3 per tonne + 2.76 m3 for carrying 10 per cent non recyclables as contamination in collection; density of the material in cubic meter from Grant (2001a) Energy inputs from Nishtala (1997) and estimated from equipment specifications

Baling of HDPE

0.9 tonne Assumption of 10 per cent loss after MRF (Grant, 2001b) Electricity inputs from Nishtala (1997), 12kWh per tonne.


20 km HDPE waste sent to Visy Plastic Recycling (Smithfield, NSW) In consistency with the assumption made for C&I and C&D waste, 20km is used as a default value for transport. Refer appendices for transport discussion.



Item Flow Unit Comment Fuel use data are from Apelbaum (1997). Greenhouse related emissions are based on fuel use with factors taken from NGGIC (1997). Non greenhouse emissions apart from lead are taken from Delft (1996).


0.9 tonne A further sorting of the plastic is undertaken at the Visy plant. Data on Visy Plastics process supplied by Visy aggregated with data from Idemat (1996) 10 per cent loss during sorting at Visy plastic facility

Reprocessing HDPE into secondary material

0.81 tonne Data supplied by Visy Plastics aggregated with data from Buwal 250




190 kg Loss from MRF and Visy Plastic factory sorting process. Emission factors for total plastics from Tellus (1992). Operation to the landfill from a personal communication with S. Middleton, Pacific Waste, NSW, 1998

Avoided process (Figure 11 — right hand side) Collection and transport of waste to landfill


Treatment of HDPE waste in landfill


Primary production of HDPE

0.81 tonne 2.1 MJ of electricity consumed per tonne of HDPE processed. Inputs adapted from Chalmers University Polymerisation (1991). Corrected for Australian energy and feedstock types.

Data Quality table and comment Table 9 presents a summary of the data quality for the main processes considered. It shows the data sources used; if they are general data or specific to a company; the age of the data; the geographic location that the data were based on; and, the nature of the technology considered.



Table 9: Data quality for life cycle inventory data modelled for recycling and landfilling of HDPE, kerbside source (1 tonne)


Impact of transport

EcoInvent, NGGI, Apelbaum (1997) and

Delft (1996)

European data adapted to Australian conditions and Australian

data

2005 Average technology

Mixed data

Reprocessing HDPE

Visy Plastics, Idemat (1996), Buwal 250

Europe, Western

2004 revised

Average technology

Mixed data

Avoided HDPE production

Adapted from Chalmers University Polymerisation data 1991.


Mixed Data (generated 1993)

Average technology

Average from processes with similar outputs




Processes considered In the case of the C&I and C&D collection system, it has been assumed that waste collected from such sources is directly sent to the reprocessing site without any further sorting process, or associated losses. The model developed takes into account transportation impacts incurred to bring the material from C&I and C&D sources to the material reprocessing facility.

Once at the reprocessing facility, the model considers the impacts of material reprocessing required to convert the waste material into secondary HDPE. Losses associated with this process are included in the analysis. The model also illustrates the processes considered in determining the impact of the processes avoided when recycling HDPE from C&I and C&D sources. Three main processes are considered, the collection of HDPE waste and landfill treatment, and the primary manufacture of HDPE from virgin resources. The system is described in Figure 11 (unique processes shaded accordingly).




Table 10: Benefits and impacts of recycling HDPE from C&I and C&D sources (per tonne). Benefits are shown negative, impacts are shown positive.


reprocessing


Primary material

production








Network diagrams detailing key processes that influence the impacts listed in Table 10 are shown in Figure 16 to Figure 19. For further information regarding interpretation of network diagrams, refer to Understanding Network Diagrams (Figure 1).

Key assumptions Table 11 describes the key processes and data sources used to determine the benefits and impacts associated with the collection, recycling and reprocessing of 1 tonne of HDPE from C&I, C&D sources. The table also includes the products and processes avoided when 1 tonne of HDPE is recycled.

Table 11: Inventory for recycling 1 tonne of HDPE from C&I and C&D source


Process flows (Figure 11 — left hand side) Waste collection and transport to reprocessor

20 km 20km distance estimate based on a simplified transport analysis for Sydney. Refer transport discussion below. Emissions from transport based on a trucking model developed by the Centre for Design, incorporating trucking data from Apelbaum (2001) and other sources. Truck backhaul ratio assumed to be 1:2.


1 tonne Data on Visy Plastics process supplied by Visy aggregated with data from Idemat (1996) 10 per cent loss during sorting at Visy plastic facility

Reprocessing of HDPE into secondary material

0.9 tonne Data supplied by Visy Plastics aggregated with data from Buwal 250. Although many reprocessors of C&I,C&D waste plastics will not utilize the Visy process, it is assumed that some degree of plastics sorting and waste generation will occur, even from segregated waste streams. This process stage is retained to simulate the associated sorting impacts.




100 kg Data supplied by Visy Plastics aggregated with data from Buwal 250 Loss from Visy Plastic factory sorting process. Emission factors for total plastics from Tellus (1992). Operation to the landfill from a personal communication with S. Middleton, Pacific Waste, NSW, 1998





20 km 20km distance estimate based on a simplified transport analysis for Sydney, refer appendices for discussion on transport. Emissions from transport based on a trucking model developed by the Centre for Design, incorporating trucking data from Apelbaum (2001), Truck backhaul ratio assumed to be 1:2.



Primary production of HDPE

0.9 tonne 2.1 MJ of electricity consumed per tonne of HDPE processed. Inputs adapted from Chalmers University Polymerisation (1991). Corrected for Australian energy and feedstock types.

Data quality table and comment Table 12 presents a summary of the data quality for the main processes considered. It shows the data sources used; if they are general data or specific to a company; the age of the data; the geographic location that the data were based on; and, the nature of the technology considered.

Table 12: Data quality for life cycle inventory data modelled for recycling and landfilling of HDPE from C&I and C&D source (1 tonne)


Impact of transport





Reprocessing HDPE

Visy Plastics, Idemat (1996), Buwal 250

Europe, Western

2004 revised

Average technology

Mixed data

Avoided HDPE production

Adapted from Chalmers University Polymerisation data 1991.


Mixed Data (generated 1993)

Average technology

Average from processes with similar outputs





References Apelbaum (1997), Australian Transport Task, Energy consumed and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Voluma A, Summary of findings

BUWAL 250 (1996), Ökoinventare für Verpackungen, Schriftenreihe Umwelt 250, Bern

Delft University of Technology (2001), Idemat database


Grant, T., James, K., (2005), Life Cycle Impact Data for resource recovery from C&I and C&D waste in Victoria final report, Melbourne, Victoria, Centre for Design at RMIT university (www.cfd.rmit.edu.au)





Tillman, C.S. (1991), Packaging and the environment, Chalmers Industriteknik, Goteborg Sweden

Tellus Institute (1992), Tellus Packaging Study, for the Council of State Governments, US EPA and New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy






2.18E3 MJ

�

Electric ity - SEAus

�

HV

�

0.608 t CO 2e

�

2.18E3 MJ

�

Electric ity - SEAU HV

�

march2003 (agg)

�

0.608 t CO 2e

�

810 kg

�

HDPE reprocessing

�

(V ic)

�

0.805 t CO 2e

�

810 kg

�

Extrusion of recycled

�

HDPE

�

0.608 t CO 2e

�

-2.73E3 MJ

�

Electric ity , high

�

voltage, Eastern

�

-0.797 t CO 2e

�

-2.73E3 MJ

�

Electric ity , high

�

voltage, Eastern

�

-0.797 t CO 2e

�

-997 MJ

�


�

NSW , sent out /AU U

�

-0.271 t CO 2e

�

-791 MJ

�

Electric ity brow n

�

coal V ictoria , sent

�

-0.29 t CO 2e

�

-1.07E4 MJ

�

Energy, f rom natural

�

gas/AU U

�

-0.63 t CO 2e

�

-672 kg

�

Ethene f rom

�

Ethane/AU U

�

-1.04 t CO 2e

�

-810 kg

�

HDPE, High density

�

polyethylene /AU U

�

-1.8 t CO 2e

�

-1.16E3 m3

�

Natural gas ,

�

processed/AU U

�

-0.334 t CO 2e

�

-891 kg

�

Natural gas , high

�

pressure/AU U

�

-0.379 t CO 2e

�

-1.16E3 m3

�

Natural gas , high

�

pressure /AU U

�

-0.379 t CO 2e

�

30.4 m3

�


�

(Syd Met )/AU U

�

0.359 t CO 2e

�

-30.4 m3

�

Garbage Coll &Tran

�

(Syd Met )/AU U

�

-0.297 t CO 2e

�

1E3 kg

�

HDPE (kerb ) - Collect

�

& reprocess

�

1.27 t CO 2e

�1E3 kg

�

HDPE (kerb) - Net

�

benef it of recycling

�

-0.836 t CO 2e

�

-1E3 kg

�

Landf ill HDPE ,

�

kerbside sources

�

-0.301 t CO 2e

�

-1E3 kg

�

landf ill of HDPE f rom

�

kerbside

�

-0.301 t CO 2e




2. 18 E3 MJ

�

Electricity - SEAus HV

�

6 .66 GJ LHV

�

2. 18 E3 MJ

�

Electricity - SEAU HV

�

m arch 2003 (agg )

�

6 .66 GJ LHV

�

810 kg

�

HDPE reprocessing

�

(Vic )

�

10 . 1 GJ LHV

�

810 kg

�

Extrusion of recy cled

�

HDPE

�

6 .66 GJ LHV

�

- 170 kg

�


�

av erage / AU U

�

-7 .6 GJ LHV

�

-2 .73 E3 MJ

�

Electricity , high v oltage ,

�

Eastern Australian / AU U

�

- 8 GJ LHV

�

-2 .73 E3 MJ

�

Electricity , high v oltage ,

�

Eastern Australian ,

�

production /AU U

�

- 8 GJ LHV

�

-1 .07 E4 MJ

�

Energy , f rom natural

�

gas /AU U

�

- 11 .1 GJ LHV

�

- 138 kg

�

Ethene

�

f r .gasoil - Kem cor /AU U

�

-10 . 1 GJ LHV

�

-672 kg

�

Ethene f rom Ethane /AU

�

U

�

- 47 .3 GJ LHV

�

-810 kg

�

HDPE , High density

�

poly ethy lene /AU U

�

- 62 .4 GJ LHV

�

-1 .16 E3 m 3

�

Natural gas ,

�

processed /AU U

�

- 47 .3 GJ LHV

�

-891 kg

�

Natural gas , high

�

pressure / AU U

�

- 47 .3 GJ LHV

�

-1 .16 E3 m 3

�

Natural gas , high

�

pressure /AU U

�

- 47 .3 GJ LHV

�

- 139 kg

�

Ref inery products , at

�

consum er /AU U

�

-7 .72 GJ LHV

�

-0 .138 m 3

�

Crude oil , im ported / GLO

�

U

�

-5 .29 GJ LHV

�

30 .4 m 3

�

Recy cling Coll &Tran

�

( Sy d Met )/ AU U

�

5. 15 GJ LHV

�

1E3 kg

�

HDPE (kerb ) - Collect &

�

reprocess

�

16 .4 GJ LHV

�

1E3 kg

�

HDPE ( kerb ) - Net

�

benef it of recy cling

�

-50 . 4 GJ LHV




2.18E3 MJ

�

Electric ity - SEAus

�

HV

�

2.89 kL H 2O

�

2.18E3 MJ

�


�

march2003 (agg)

�

2.89 kL H 2O

�

1.62E3 kg

�


�

U

�

1.62 kL H 2O

�

810 kg

�

HDPE reprocessing

�

(V ic)

�

4.51 kL H 2O

�

810 kg

�

Extrusion of

�

recycled HDPE

�

2.89 kL H 2O

�

-2.73E3 MJ

�

Electric ity , high

�

voltage, Eastern

�

-1.27 kL H2O

�

-2.73E3 MJ

�

Electric ity , high

�

voltage, Eastern

�

-1.27 kL H2O

�

-997 MJ

�


�


�

-0.433 kL H 2O

�

-733 MJ

�


�

QLD, sent out /AU U

�

-0.43 kL H 2O

�

-791 MJ

�

Electric ity brow n

�


�

-0.35 kL H2O

�

-138 kg

�

Ethene

�

f r.gasoil-Kemcor/AU

�

-0.142 kL H 2O

�

-672 kg

�

Ethene f rom

�

Ethane /AU U

�

-0.396 kL H 2O

�

-810 kg

�

HDPE, High density

�

polyethylene /AU U

�

-1.33 kL H 2O

�

1E3 kg

�

HDPE (kerb ) - Collect

�

& reprocess

�

4.67 kL H 2O

�1E3 kg

�

HDPE (kerb) - Net

�


�

3.31 kL H2O




810 kg

�

HDPE reprocessing

�

( Vic)

�

0. 102 tonnes

�

810 kg

�

Extrusion of recy cled

�

HDPE

�

0. 102 tonnes

�

- 170 kg

�


�

av erage / AU U

�

-1 .91 tonnes

�

- 508 MJ

�

Energy , f rom f uel oil ,

�

just f uel , CO 2 ,CH 4 , &

�

N 2O /AU U

�

- 0. 147 tonnes

�

-138 kg

�

Ethene

�

f r. gasoil -Kem cor / AU U

�

- 1. 9 tonnes

�

- 15 .7 kg

�

Fuel oil , at

�

consum er / AU U

�

- 0. 184 tonnes

�

-810 kg

�

HDPE , High density

�

poly ethy lene /AU U

�

- 1. 95 tonnes

�

-139 kg

�


�

consum er / AU U

�

- 1. 9 tonnes

�

- 162 kg

�

Crude oil production

�

waste water em issions

�

per kg crude /AU U

�

-1 .91 tonnes

�

- 0. 172 m 3

�

Ref ining other ref inery

�

products / AU U

�

- 0. 142 tonnes

�

190 kg

�

Landf ill inert waste

�

0 .19 tonnes

�

1E3 kg

�

HDPE (kerb ) - Collect &

�

reprocess

�

0. 351 tonnes

�

1E3 kg

�

HDPE ( kerb ) - Net

�

benef it of recy cling

�

-2 .55 tonnes

�

- 1E3 kg

�

Landf ill HDPE , kerbside

�

sources

�

-0 .95 tonnes

�

- 1E3 kg

�

landf ill of HDPE f rom

�

kerbside

�

-0 .95 tonnes





2.42E3 MJ

�

Electric ity - SEAus HV

�

0.675 t CO 2e

�

2.42E3 MJ

�


�

march2003 (agg)

�

0.675 t CO 2e

�

3.72E3 MJ

�


�

gas/AU U

�

0.218 t CO 2e

�

900 kg

�

HDPE reprocessing

�

(V ic)

�

0.895 t CO 2e

�

900 kg

�


�

HDPE

�

0.675 t CO 2e

�

-3.04E3 MJ

�

Electric ity , high voltage ,

�

Eastern Australian /AU

�

U

�

-0.886 t CO 2e

�

-3.04E3 MJ

�


�


�

production/AU U

�

-0.886 t CO 2e

�

-1.11E3 MJ

�


�


�

-0.301 t CO 2e

�

-814 MJ

�


�

QLD, sent out /AU U

�

-0.216 t CO 2e

�

-879 MJ

�

Electric ity brow n coal

�

V ictoria, sent out /AU U

�

-0.322 t CO 2e

�

-1.19E4 MJ

�


�

gas/AU U

�

-0.7 t CO 2e

�

-153 kg

�

Ethene

�

f r.gasoil-Kemcor/AU U

�

-0.285 t CO 2e

�

-747 kg

�


�

U

�

-1.16 t CO 2e

�

-900 kg

�

HDPE, High density

�

polyethylene /AU U

�

-2 t CO 2e

�

-1.29E3 m3

�

Natural gas ,

�

processed/AU U

�

-0.371 t CO 2e

�

-990 kg

�

Natural gas , high

�

pressure/AU U

�

-0.421 t CO 2e

�

-1.29E3 m3

�

Natural gas , high

�

pressure /AU U

�

-0.421 t CO 2e

�

-2.51E3 MJ

�

Oil & gas production

�

2001-02/AU U

�

-0.185 t CO 2e

�

-124 kg

�

Venting - gas

�

processing plant

�

2001-02/AU U

�

-0.184 t CO 2e

�

1E3 kg

�

HDPE (CI & CD) - Collect

�

and reprocess

�

0.927 t CO 2e

�1E3 kg

�

HDPE (CI & CD) - Net

�


�

-1.08 t CO 2e




2.42E3 MJ

�


�

7.4 GJ LHV

�

2.42E3 MJ

�


�

march2003 (agg)

�

7.4 GJ LHV

�

900 kg

�

HDPE reprocessing

�

(V ic)

�

11.2 GJ LHV

�

900 kg

�


�

HDPE

�

7.4 GJ LHV

�

-189 kg

�


�

average/AU U

�

-8.44 GJ LHV

�

-3.04E3 MJ

�


�

Eastern Australian /AU U

�

-8.89 GJ LHV

�

-3.04E3 MJ

�


�


�

production /AU U

�

-8.89 GJ LHV

�

-1.19E4 MJ

�


�

gas/AU U

�

-12.3 GJ LHV

�

-153 kg

�

Ethene

�

f r.gasoil-Kemcor /AU U

�

-11.2 GJ LHV

�

-747 kg

�


�

U

�

-52.5 GJ LHV

�

-900 kg

�

HDPE, High density

�

polyethylene/AU U

�

-69.4 GJ LHV

�

-1.29E3 m3

�

Natural gas ,

�

processed/AU U

�

-52.6 GJ LHV

�

-990 kg

�

Natural gas , high

�

pressure/AU U

�

-52.6 GJ LHV

�

-1.29E3 m3

�

Natural gas , high

�

pressure /AU U

�

-52.6 GJ LHV

�

-154 kg

�


�

consumer/AU U

�

-8.58 GJ LHV

�

-0.154 m3

�

Crude oil , imported /GLO

�

U

�

-5.88 GJ LHV

�

1E3 kg

�


�

and reprocess

�

11.6 GJ LHV

�1E3 kg

�


�


�

-57.9 GJ LHV




2.42E3 MJ

�


�

3.21 kL H 2O

�

2.42E3 MJ

�


�

march2003 (agg)

�

3.21 kL H 2O

�

1.8E3 kg

�

Water (delivered)/AU U

�

1.8 kL H2O

�

900 kg

�

HDPE reprocessing

�

(V ic)

�

5.02 kL H2O

�

900 kg

�


�

HDPE

�

3.21 kL H 2O

�

-3.04E3 MJ

�


�

Eastern Australian /AU

�

U

�

-1.41 kL H2O

�

-3.04E3 MJ

�


�


�

production/AU U

�

-1.41 kL H2O

�

-1.11E3 MJ

�


�


�

-0.481 kL H 2O

�

-814 MJ

�


�

QLD, sent out /AU U

�

-0.478 kL H2O

�

-879 MJ

�

Electric ity brow n coal

�

V ictoria , sent out /AU U

�

-0.389 kL H2O

�

-153 kg

�

Ethene

�


�

-0.157 kL H 2O

�

-747 kg

�


�

U

�

-0.44 kL H 2O

�

-900 kg

�

HDPE, High density

�

polyethylene/AU U

�

-1.47 kL H 2O

�

1E3 kg

�


�

and reprocess

�

5.06 kL H2O

�1E3 kg

�


�


�

3.58 kL H2O




900 kg

�

HDPE reprocessing

�

(Vic )

�

0.113 tonnes

�

900 kg

�


�

HDPE

�

0.113 tonnes

�

-189 kg

�


�

average/AU U

�

-2.13 tonnes

�

-564 MJ

�


�


�

N2O/AU U

�

-0.163 tonnes

�

-153 kg

�

Ethene

�

fr .gasoil -Kemcor /AU

�

U

�

-2.11 tonnes

�

-17.5 kg

�

Fuel oil , at

�

consumer /AU U

�

-0.204 tonnes

�

-900 kg

�

HDPE , High density

�

polyethylene /AU U

�

-2.16 tonnes

�

-154 kg

�


�

consumer /AU U

�

-2.11 tonnes

�

-180 kg

�

Crude oil production

�

waste water emissions

�

per kg crude /AU U

�

-2.13 tonnes

�

-0.191 m3

�

Refining other

�

refinery products /AU

�

U

�

-0.158 tonnes

�

-1E3 kg

�

landfill of HDPE from

�

C& I and C &D

�

-0.95 tonnes

�

100 kg

�


�

0.1 tonnes

�

1E3 kg

�

HDPE (CI & CD) -

�

Collect and reprocess

�

0.277 tonnes

�1E3 kg

�

HDPE (CI & CD) -

�

Net benefit of

�

recycling

�

-2.84 tonnes

�

-1E3 kg

�

Landfill HDPE , CI &

�

CD sources

�

-0.95 tonnes



PVC

Process description PolyVinyl Chloride (PVC) is one of the most widely used thermoplastic polymers, and can be made into a rigid or a flexible material. It can be used in various applications such as construction (80 per cent of the PVC market (John Scheirs, 2003)), or the packaging market. A number of companies are recycling PVC in Australia — for the purposes of this study we have assumed that a process similar to that used by Cryogrind is employed. Cryogrind is employing a process that involves grinding the waste into flakes, followed by a flotation process which is used to remove contaminants (PE and PP). A cryogenic process is then used to remove PET contaminants. The result of this process is a pure PVC powder that can be used as a substitute for virgin PVC. The replacement ratio is one to one, after taking into account the losses during sorting and cleaning of used PVC.

Two collection systems for PVC waste were considered in the model: A) Kerbside collection — municipal collection of commingled PVC from households, and

processing through a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF)

B) C&I and C&D collection — segregated waste collected is sent directly to the reprocessing site without any sorting process, or associated losses.

The unique nature of each collection system drives differences in the impacts associated with PVC recycling. For this reason the PVC recycling processes considered and impacts generated have been described separately in the following sections, according to the collection method used.

Figure 20 illustrates the processes considered in determining the overall impact of PVC recycling from kerbside and C&I and C&D sources (shown to the left of the vertical line), and the processes considered in determining the overall impact of the avoided processes (shown to the right of the vertical line).





MRF

MRF

Baling of PVC


Reprocessing PVC into

secondary material


landfill


to landfill



Primary production of PVC


System Boundary



reprocessor



Processes considered The kerbside collection system involves collection of waste for recycling from the kerbside and transport to a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF), which sorts the commingled materials in the recycling stream. The model developed takes into account transportation impacts as well as sorting impacts incurred to bring the material from the kerbside to the material reprocessing facility. During sorting, waste material is generated and transported to landfill.

Once at the reprocessing facility, the model considers the impacts of material reprocessing required to convert the waste material back into PVC granulate. Losses associated with this process are included in the analysis. The kerbside treatment system is illustrated in Figure 20 (processes unique to kerbside collection have been shaded accordingly).

In order to determine the net benefit of recycling a material, it is also necessary to consider the processes avoided when recycling is undertaken. Figure 20 also illustrates the processes that would be avoided if waste PVC was to be recycled (shown to the right of the vertical line). Two main avoided processes are considered; the collection and disposal to landfill of waste PVC from the kerbside, and the primary manufacture of PVC from virgin resources.




Table 13: Benefits and impacts of recycling PVC from a kerbside source (per tonne)



Primary material

production



Cumulative energy demand GJ LHV 6.22 -0.13 -44.90 -45.03 -38.81Water use kL H2O 6.65 0.00 -70.67 -70.67 -64.02Solid w aste tonnes 0.27 -0.95 -0.06 -1.01 -0.74







Key assumptions Table 14 describes the key processes and data sources used to determine the benefits and impacts associated with the collection, recycling and reprocessing of 1 tonne of PVC. The table also includes the products and processes avoided when 1 tonne of PVC is recycled.

Table 14: Inventory for recycling of PVC, kerbside source (1 tonne)


Recycling process flows (Figure 20 — left hand side) Waste collection and transport to MRF

26.8 m3 Based on PVC bulk density of 24.4m3/tonne plus 2.44m3 for collection of associated contaminants in recycling which are disposed at MRF. Grant (2001a). Transport model for kerbside collection based on Grant (2001b); refer appendices for discussion on transport. Emission of the truck from NGGIC (1997).

Sorting of PVC at Material Recovery Facility (MRF)

26.8 m3 Based on PVC bulk density of 24.4m3/tonne plus 2.44m3 for collection of associated contaminants in recycling which are disposed at MRF. Grant (2001a). Energy inputs from Nishtala (1997) and estimated from equipment specifications.

Baling of PVC 0.90 tonne Estimated 10 per cent loss at MRF Electricity inputs from Nishtala (1997), 12kWh per tonne.


20 km For consistency with the assumption made for C&I and C&D waste, 20km is used as a default value for transport. Refer appendices for discussion on transport. Emissions from transport based on a trucking model from Apelbaum (2001)



Item Flow Unit Comment Reprocessing PVC into secondary material

0.9 tonne PVC reprocessing based on PVC input. Data based on a specific company process (Grant and James 2005). Figures cannot be displayed for confidentiality issues. 15 per cent loss during reprocessing, so reprocessing 0.9 tonne of PVC waste ends up with 0.765 tonne of reprocessed PVC output.

Transport of waste form sorting to landfill



0.1 tonne 10 per cent assumed reject rate at MRF. Operation to the landfill from a personal communication with S. Middleton, Pacific Waste, NSW, 1998 Emissions factors from Nielson (1998)



Treatment of waste PVC in landfill

1 tonne Operation to the landfill from a personal communication with S. Middleton, Pacific Waste, NSW, 1998 Emissions factors from Nielson (1998)


PVC

0.765 tonne For 0.9 tonne reprocessed, 0.765 tonne of secondary PVC is produce, thereby avoiding 0.765 tonne of virgin PVC production. PVC production updated from Packaging Waste project (Grant 2001) with input from Australian Vinyls and Boustead (1997)

Data Quality Table 15 presents a summary of the data quality for the main processes considered. It shows the data sources used; if they are general data or specific to a company; the age of the data; the geographic location that the data were based on; and, the nature of the technology considered.

Table 15: Data quality for life cycle inventory data modelled for recycling and landfilling of PVC, kerbside source (1 tonne)


Recycling collection and transport

NGGIC 1997, Apelbaum 2001




Reprocessing PVC

Grant & James (2005), Boustead (1997)

Australia 1997–2000

Average technology

Mixed data

Avoided virgin PVC production

Boustead (1997), Australian Vinyls (1999)


Average technology

Data from a specific process and company


Tellus Packaging Study, 1992


Unspecified Mixed data




Processes considered In the case of the C&I and C&D collection system, it has been assumed that segregated waste collected is sent directly to the reprocessing site without any sorting process, or associated losses. The model developed takes into account transportation impacts incurred to bring the material from C&I and C&D sources to the material reprocessing facility.

Once at the reprocessing facility, the model considers the impacts of material reprocessing required to convert the waste material into secondary PVC. Losses associated with this process are included in the analysis. The model also illustrates the processes considered in determining the impact of the processes avoided when recycling PVC from C&I and C&D sources. Three main processes are considered, the collection of PVC waste and landfill treatment, and the primary manufacture of PVC from virgin resources. The system is also described in Figure 20 (processes unique to C&I,C&D collection have been shaded accordingly).


Table 16: Benefits and impacts of recycling PVC from C&I and C&D sources (per tonne)


reprocessing


Primary material

production



Cumulative energy demand GJ LHV 1.10 -0.13 -49.89 -50.02 -48.92Water use kL H2O 7.27 0.00 -78.52 -78.52 -71.25Solid w aste tonnes 0.17 -0.95 -0.07 -1.02 -0.84






Key assumptions Table 17 describes the key processes and data sources used to determine the benefits and impacts associated with the collection, recycling and reprocessing of 1 tonne of PVC. The table also includes the products and processes avoided when 1 tonne of PVC is recycled.



Table 17: Inventory for recycling of PVC, C&I, C&D sources (1 tonne)


Recycling process flows (Figure 20 — left hand side ) Waste collection and transport to reprocessor

20 km 20km distance estimate based on a simplified transport analysis for Sydney. Refer appendices for discussion on transport. Emissions from transport based on a trucking model developed by the Centre for Design, incorporating trucking data from Apelbaum (2001) and other sources. Truck backhaul ratio assumed to be 1.2.

Reprocessing PVC into secondary material

1 tonne PVC reprocessing based on PVC input. Data based on a specific company process (Grant and James 2005). Figures cannot be displayed for confidentiality issues. 15 per cent loss during reprocessing, so reprocessing 1 tonne of PVC waste ends up with 0.85 tonne of reprocessed PVC output


20 km 20km distance estimate based on a simplified transport analysis for Sydney, refer appendices for discussion on transport. Emissions from transport based on a trucking model developed by the Centre for Design, incorporating trucking data from Apelbaum (2001), Truck backhaul ratio assumed to be 1:2.


1 tonne Operation to the landfill from a personal communication with S. Middleton, Pacific Waste, NSW, 1998 Emissions factors from Nielson (1998)

Primary production of PVC

0.85 tonne For 1 tonne reprocessed, 0.85 tonne of secondary PVC is produce, thereby avoiding 0.85 tonne of virgin PVC production. PVC production updated from Packaging Waste project (Grant 2001) with input from Australian Vinyls and Boustead (1997)

Data Quality Table 18 presents a summary of the data quality for the main processes considered. It shows the data sources used; if they are general data or specific to a company; the age of the data; the geographic location that the data were based on; and, the nature of the technology considered.

Table 18: Data quality for life cycle inventory data modelled for recycling and landfilling of PVC, kerbside source (1 tonne)



Apelbaum 2001 Australia 2001 Average Average from all suppliers



Reprocessing PVC

Grant & James (2005), Boustead (1997)


Average technology

Mixed data

Avoided virgin PVC production

Boustead (1997), Australian Vinyls (1999)


Average technology

Data from a specific process and company




Unspecified Mixed data




Australian Vinyls (1999), Environmental Report on PVC, Australian Vinyls.

Boustead I. (1997), Eco-profile of PVC production in Australia, Boustead Consulting Ltd.

Cryogrind (2000), personal communication between Basil Signaki (cryogrind) and Karli James (VU)

DEH (2004), National Pollutant Inventory Data for year 2002, Department of Environment, Canberra.

John Scheirs (2003), End-of-life Environmental Issued with PVC in Australia, ExcelPlas Polymer Technology (EPT)

Grant and James (2005), Life Cycle Impact Data for resource recovery from C&I and C&D waste in Victoria final report, Melbourne, Victoria, Centre for Design at RMIT university (www.cfd.rmit.edu.au)



IVAM 4.0 Database (2004), IVAM Environmental Research, Amsterdam, Netherlands, from www.ivam.nl/index.php?id=164&L=1

National Greenhouse Gas Inventory (2002 through 2006), Department of Climate Change, Canberra

Nielson, P., Hauschild, M., (1998): Product Emissions from Municipal Sold Waste Landfills. Part 1: Landfill Model. Int J LCA 3 (3) 158–168, Landsberg

Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories. (2004). "EcoInvent Database version 1.01." from http://www.ecoinvent.ch/en/index.htm.







404 MJ

�

A rticulated truck

�

operation/AU U

�

0.0433 t CO 2e

�

117 tkm

�

A rticulated Truck , 7

�

tonne load on 30

�

tonne truck , (f reight

�

0.0465 t CO 2e

�

1.55E4 m

�

Bulk recyclables

�

trans./AU U

�

0.0465 t CO 2e

�

1.46E4 s

�

Collecting

�

Recyclables/AU U

�

0.23 t CO 2e

�

82.9 kg

�

Diesel , at

�

consumer/AU U

�

0.0543 t CO 2e

�

-1E3 MJ

�

Electric ity , high

�

voltage, Eastern

�

-0.293 t CO 2e

�

-1E3 MJ

�

Electric ity , high

�

voltage, Eastern

�

-0.293 t CO 2e

�

-325 MJ

�


�


�

-0.0885 t CO 2e

�

-239 MJ

�


�

QLD, sent out /AU U

�

-0.0636 t CO 2e

�

-258 MJ

�

Electric ity brow n

�


�

out/AU U

�

-0.0947 t CO 2e

�

-2.27E3 MJ

�


�

gas/AU U

�

-0.133 t CO 2e

�

26.8 m3

�

MRF sorting

�

recyclables/AU U

�

0.0498 t CO 2e

�

3.4E4 m

�

Recyclables

�

transit /AU U

�

0.04 t CO 2e

�

1.46E4 s

�

Recycling Truck

�

(packw aste )/AU U

�

0.23 t CO 2e

�

1.63E4 s

�

Refuse truck

�

(packw aste )/AU U

�

0.23 t CO 2e

�

3.4E4 m

�

Rigid truck , gross

�

distance travelled /AU

�

U

�

0.04 t CO 2e

�

-767 kg

�

V inylchloride

�

Monomer APME/AU U

�

-1.4 t CO 2e

�

26.8 m3

�


�

(Syd Met )/AU U

�

0.317 t CO 2e

�

1E3 kg

�

PVC (kerb ) - Collect

�

& reprocess

�

0.471 t CO 2e

�1E3 kg

�

PVC (kerb) - Net

�


�

-1.38 t CO 2e

�

-765 kg

�

Primary PVC

�

production

�

-1.84 t CO 2e

�

900 kg

�

PVC reprocessing

�

(V ic) System

�

0.0891 t CO 2e




1.46E4 s

�

Collecting

�

Recyclables/AU U

�

3.3 GJ LHV

�

98.3 kg

�


�

average/AU U

�

4.39 GJ LHV

�

82.9 kg

�

Diesel , at

�

consumer/AU U

�

4.47 GJ LHV

�

-1E3 MJ

�

Electric ity , high

�

voltage, Eastern

�

Australian /AU U

�

-2.94 GJ LHV

�

-1E3 MJ

�

Electric ity , high

�

voltage, Eastern

�

-2.94 GJ LHV

�

-2.27E3 MJ

�


�

gas/AU U

�

-2.34 GJ LHV

�

-58.1 m3

�

Natural gas ,

�

processed/AU U

�

-2.38 GJ LHV

�

-44.7 kg

�

Natural gas , high

�

pressure/AU U

�

-2.38 GJ LHV

�

-58.1 m3

�

Natural gas , high

�

pressure /AU U

�

-2.38 GJ LHV

�

1.46E4 s

�

Recycling Truck

�

(packw aste )/AU U

�

3.3 GJ LHV

�

1.63E4 s

�

Refuse truck

�

(packw aste )/AU U

�

3.3 GJ LHV

�

-767 kg

�

V inylchloride

�

Monomer APME/AU U

�

-39.4 GJ LHV

�

0.0369 m3

�

Crude oil ,

�

domestic/AU U

�

1.35 GJ LHV

�

0.0799 m3

�

Crude oil ,

�

imported/GLO U

�

3.06 GJ LHV

�

26.8 m3

�


�

(Syd Met )/AU U

�

4.54 GJ LHV

�

1E3 kg

�

PVC (kerb) - Collect

�

& reprocess

�

6.22 GJ LHV

�1E3 kg

�

PVC (kerb) - Net

�


�

-38.8 GJ LHV

�

-765 kg

�

Primary PVC

�

production

�

-44.9 GJ LHV

�

900 kg

�

PVC reprocessing

�

(V ic) System

�

0.922 GJ LHV



Figure 23: Recycling process network diagram — Water indicator. Processes contributing less than 1 per cent to total are not shown. Major processes from results table above are shown shaded.

�

-767 kg

�

Vinylchloride

�

Monomer APME/AU U

�

-65.8 kL H2O

�

-4.41E3 kg

�


�

U

�

-4.41 kL H2O

�

1E3 kg

�


�

& reprocess

�

6.65 kL H2O

�1E3 kg

�

PVC (kerb) - Net

�


�

-64 kL H2O

�

-765 kg

�

Primary PVC

�

production

�

-70.7 kL H2O

�

900 kg

�

PVC reprocessing

�

(Vic) System

�

6.55 kL H2O




-1E3 MJ

�

Electric ity , high

�

voltage, Eastern

�

Australian /AU U

�

-0.0122 tonnes

�

-1E3 MJ

�

Electric ity , high

�

voltage, Eastern

�

-0.0122 tonnes

�

-767 kg

�

V inylchloride

�

Monomer APME/AU U

�

-0.0462 tonnes

�

20 tkm

�

A rticulated Truck , 15

�

tonne load on 30

�

tonne truck , (f reight

�

0.0138 tonnes

�

-1E3 kg

�

Landf ill plastics , C&I

�

sources AU, EEBR

�

2008

�

-0.95 tonnes

�

100 kg

�

Landf ill inert w aste

�

0.1 tonnes

�

1E3 kg

�


�

& reprocess

�

0.27 tonnes

�1E3 kg

�

PVC (kerb) - Net

�


�

-0.739 tonnes

�

-765 kg

�

Primary PVC

�

production

�

-0.0588 tonnes

�

-1E3 kg

�

landf ill of PVC f rom

�

kerbside

�

-0.95 tonnes

�

900 kg

�

PVC reprocessing

�

(V ic) System

�

0.154 tonnes





-1.16E3 MJ

�

Electric ity , high

�

voltage, Eastern

�

-0.338 t CO 2e

�

-1.16E3 MJ

�

Electric ity , high

�

voltage, Eastern

�

-0.338 t CO 2e

�

-422 MJ

�


�


�

-0.115 t CO 2e

�

-310 MJ

�


�

QLD, sent out /AU U

�

-0.0824 t CO 2e

�

-335 MJ

�

Electric ity brow n

�


�

out/AU U

�

-0.123 t CO 2e

�

-2.62E3 MJ

�


�

gas/AU U

�

-0.154 t CO 2e

�

-54.2 kg

�

Natural gas , high

�

pressure/AU U

�

-0.0231 t CO 2e

�

-70.4 m3

�

Natural gas , high

�

pressure /AU U

�

-0.0231 t CO 2e

�

-852 kg

�

V inylchloride

�

Monomer APME/AU U

�

-1.55 t CO 2e

�

-850 kg

�

Primary PVC

�

production

�

-2.05 t CO 2e

�

1E3 kg

�

PVC (CI & CD) -

�

Collect & reprocess

�

0.104 t CO 2e

�1E3 kg

�

PVC (CI & CD) - Net

�


�

-1.95 t CO 2e

�

1E3 kg

�

PVC reprocessing

�

(V ic) System

�

0.099 t CO 2e




-53.1 kg

�

Black coal , NSW /AU

�

U

�

-1.15 GJ LHV

�

-40.3 kg

�

Black coal , QLD/AU

�

U

�

-0.835 GJ LHV

�

-132 kg

�

Brow n coal ,

�

V ictoria /AU U

�

-1.07 GJ LHV

�

-1.16E3 MJ

�

Electric ity , high

�

voltage, Eastern

�

Australian /AU U

�

-3.39 GJ LHV

�

-1.16E3 MJ

�

Electric ity , high

�

voltage, Eastern

�

Australian ,

�

-3.39 GJ LHV

�

-422 MJ

�


�


�

-1.15 GJ LHV

�

-310 MJ

�


�

QLD, sent out /AU U

�

-0.838 GJ LHV

�

-335 MJ

�

Electric ity brow n

�


�

-1.07 GJ LHV

�

-2.62E3 MJ

�


�

gas/AU U

�

-2.7 GJ LHV

�

-70.4 m3

�

Natural gas ,

�

processed/AU U

�

-2.88 GJ LHV

�

-54.2 kg

�

Natural gas , high

�

pressure/AU U

�

-2.88 GJ LHV

�

-70.4 m3

�

Natural gas , high

�

pressure /AU U

�

-2.88 GJ LHV

�

-852 kg

�

V inylchloride

�

Monomer APME/AU U

�

-43.8 GJ LHV

�

-850 kg

�

Primary PVC

�

production

�

-49.9 GJ LHV

�

1E3 kg

�

PVC (CI & CD) -

�

Collect & reprocess

�

1.1 GJ LHV

�1E3 kg

�

PVC (CI & CD) - Net

�


�

-48.9 GJ LHV

�

1E3 kg

�

PVC reprocessing

�

(V ic) System

�

1.02 GJ LHV



Figure 27: Recycling process network diagram — Water indicator. Processes contributing less than 1 per cent to total are not shown. Major processes from results table above are shown shaded.

�

-852 kg

�

Vinylchloride

�

Monomer APME/AU U

�

-73.1 kL H2O

�

-4.9E3 kg

�


�

U

�

-4.9 kL H2O

�

-850 kg

�

Primary PVC

�

production

�

-78.5 kL H2O

�

1E3 kg

�

PVC (CI & CD) -

�

Collect & reprocess

�

7.27 kL H2O

�1E3 kg

�

PVC (CI & CD) - Net

�


�

-71.3 kL H2O

�

1E3 kg

�

PVC reprocessing

�

(Vic) System

�

7.27 kL H2O




-1.16E3 MJ

�

Electric ity , high

�

voltage, Eastern

�

Australian /AU U

�

-0.0141 tonnes

�

-1.16E3 MJ

�

Electric ity , high

�

voltage, Eastern

�

-0.0141 tonnes

�

-422 MJ

�


�


�

-0.0073 tonnes

�

-19.7 kg

�

Fly ash

�

processing//AU U

�

-0.0118 tonnes

�

-852 kg

�

V inylchloride

�

Monomer APME/AU U

�

-0.0513 tonnes

�

-1E3 kg

�

Landf ill plastics , C&I

�

sources AU, EEBR

�

2008

�

-0.95 tonnes

�

-1E3 kg

�

landf ill of PVC f rom

�

C&I and C &D

�

-0.95 tonnes

�

-850 kg

�

Primary PVC

�

production

�

-0.0654 tonnes

�

1E3 kg

�

PVC (CI & CD) -

�

Collect & reprocess

�

0.171 tonnes

�1E3 kg

�

PVC (CI & CD) - Net

�


�

-0.844 tonnes

�

1E3 kg

�

PVC reprocessing

�

(V ic) System

�

0.171 tonnes



Mixed plastics

Process description The mixed plastics category addresses the plastics that are either:

i) not from the other categories addressed specifically (PVC, PP, HDPE, etc); or,

ii) in a form that doesn’t allow segregated recycling. Materials like plasticised PVC, laminate films, expended polystyrene, would be grouped in that category along with other materials.

This summary should be considered as a rough estimate of impacts associated with the offshore reprocessing of plastic materials that either cannot be reprocessed locally, or that cannot be adequately segregated to allow local reprocessing to occur. Mixed plastics are assumed to be sent to China for reprocessing back into low grade polymers, like polypropylene. At the offshore reprocessing facility, the material is shredded, screened for contaminants (such as metals), washed and ground into granulate.

Two collection systems for waste mixed plastics were considered in the model: A) Kerbside collection — municipal collection of mixed plastics in commingled from

households, and processing through a Materials Recovery Facility.

B) C&I, C&D collection — the segregated waste collected is sent directly to the reprocessing site without any sorting process, or associated losses.

The unique nature of each collection system drives differences in the impacts associated with mixed plastics recycling. For this reason the mixed plastics recycling processes considered and impacts generated have been described separately in the following sections, according to the collection method used.

Figure 29 illustrates the processes considered in determining the overall impact of mixed plastics recycling from kerbside and C&I and C&D sources (shown to the left of the vertical line), and the processes considered in determining the overall impact of the avoided processes (shown to the right of the vertical line).





MRF

MRF

Reprocessing mixed plastics into low grade polymer

(PP)

Shipping to China


landfill


to landfill



Primary production of PP


System Boundary


Waste collection

Modelled for CI&CD sources only

Baling of Mixed plastics


Processes considered The kerbside collection system involves collection of waste for recycling from the kerbside and transport to a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) which sorts the commingled materials in the recycling stream. The model developed takes into account transportation impacts as well as sorting impacts incurred to bring the material from the kerbside to the material reprocessing facility. During sorting, waste material is generated and transported to landfill.

Once at the reprocessing facility, the model considers the impacts of material reprocessing required to convert the waste material into low grade polymer. Losses associated with this process



are included in the analysis. The kerbside treatment system is illustrated in Figure 29 (unique processes shaded accordingly).

In order to determine the net benefit of recycling a material it is necessary to consider the processes avoided when recycling is undertaken. Figure 29 also illustrates the processes that would be avoided if mixed plastics wastes were to be recycled (shown to the right of the vertical line). Two main avoided processes are considered; the collection and disposal to landfill of mixed plastics wastes from the kerbside, and the primary manufacture of PP from virgin resources.

Polypropylene (PP) is used to represent the avoided product. Applications for recycled mixed plastic are varied and could potentially displace many kinds of plastic material. For the purposes of this study PP was selected as a typical substitute in line with Grant and James (2005).


Table 19: Benefits and impacts of recycling mixed plastics from kerbside sources (per tonne). Benefits are shown negative, impacts are shown positive.



Primary material

production










Key assumptions Table 20 describes the key processes and data sources used to determine the benefits and impacts associated with the collection, recycling and reprocessing of 1 tonne of mixed plastic. The table also includes the products and processes avoided when 1 tonne of mixed plastic is recycled.



Table 20: Inventory for recycling mixed plastics (1 tonne)


Recycling process flows (Figure 29 — left hand side) Waste collection and transport to

MRF

18.96 m3 17.23 m3 per tonne + 1.72 m3 for carrying 10 per cent non recyclables as contamination in collection, from Grant (2001) Transport model for kerbside collection based on Grant (2001), refer discussion below Emission of the truck from NGGIC (1997)

Sorting at Material Recovery Facility (MRF)

18.96 m3 10 per cent non recyclables as contamination in collection; density of the material in cubic meter from Grant (2001) Energy inputs from Nishtala (1997) and estimated from equipment specifications

Baling of mixed plastics

0.9 tonne Assumption of 10 per cent loss after MRF (Grant, 2001) Electricity inputs from Nishtala (1997), 12kWh per tonne.

Shipping to China

20,000 km Assumption that waste are sent to China for reprocessing by ship and then come back to Sydney (10,000km assumed for a one way trip). Fuel use data are from Apelbaum (1997). Greenhouse related emissions are based on fuel use with factors taken from NGGIC (1997). Non greenhouse emissions apart from lead are taken from Delft (1996).

Reprocessing mixed plastics into low grade polymer (PP)

0.9 tonne 10 per cent loss after MRF. Data supplied by Visy Plastics aggregated with data from Buwal 250. 10 per cent assumed lost at reprocessing, so process ends up with 0.81 tonne reprocessed low grade polymer output.



Treatment of waste in landfill.

100 kg Loss from MRF and Visy Plastic factory sorting process. Emission factors for total plastics from Tellus (1992). Operation to the landfill from a personal communication with S. Middleton, Pacific Waste, NSW, 1998





Primary production of polypropylene

0.81 tonne Polypropylene (PP) data is used to represent the avoided product. Applications for mixed plastic recyclate are varied and could potentially displace many kinds of plastic material. For the purposes of this study PP was selected as a typical substitute in line with Grant and James (2005). Reprocessing ends up with 0.81 tonne of reprocessed low grade polymer thereby avoiding 0.81 tonne of virgin PP production. PP production impacts adapted for Australian conditions from the IVAM database.



Data quality table and comment Table 21 presents a summary of the data quality for the main processes considered. It shows the data sources used; if they are general data or specific to a company; the age of the data; the geographic location that the data were based on; and, the nature of the technology considered.

Table 21: Data quality for life cycle inventory data modelled for recycling and landfilling of mixed plastics, kerbside source



Impacts of transportation modes

EcoInvent, NGGI, Apelbaum (1997) and Delft


1997–2005

Average technology

Mixed data

Reprocessing of mixed plastics

Visy Plastics, Idemat

Australia and European data

2004–2008

Average technology

Data from a reprocessor mixed with average data

Avoided materials production

IVAM Australia 1998 Modern technology

Average of all suppliers




Processes considered In the case of the C&I and C&D collection system, it has been assumed that mixed plastic waste collected is sent directly to the reprocessing site without any sorting process, or associated losses. The model developed takes into account transportation impacts incurred to bring the material from C&I and C&D sources to the material reprocessing facility.

Once at the reprocessing facility, the model considers the impacts of material reprocessing required to convert the waste material into low grade polymer. Losses associated with this process are included in the analysis. The model also illustrates the processes considered in determining the impact of the processes avoided when recycling mixed plastics from C&I and C&D sources. Three main processes are considered, the collection of waste mixed plastics and landfill treatment, and the primary manufacture of PP from virgin resources. The system is also described in Figure 29 (unique processes shaded accordingly).




Table 22: Benefits and impacts of recycling mixed plastics from C&I and C&D sources (per tonne). Benefits are shown negative, impacts are shown positive.


reprocessing


Primary material

production









Key assumptions Table 23 describes the key processes and data sources used to determine the benefits and impacts associated with the collection, recycling and reprocessing of 1 tonne of mixed plastic. The table also includes the products and processes avoided when 1 tonne of mixed plastic is recycled.

Table 23: Inventory for recycling mixed plastics (1 tonne)


Recycling process flows (Figure 29 — left hand side) Waste collection

20 km 20km distance estimate based on a simplified transport analysis for Sydney. Refer transport discussion below. Emissions from transport based on a trucking model adapted from EcoInvent and NGGI (2004), Truck backhaul ratio assumed to be 1:2.

Baling of mixed plastics

1 tonne Electricity inputs from Nishtala (1997), 12kWh per tonne.

Shipping to China

20,000 km Assumption that waste are sent to China for reprocessing by ship and then come back to Sydney (10,000km assumed for a one way trip). Fuel use data are from Apelbaum (1997). Greenhouse related emissions are based on fuel use with factors taken from NGGIC (1997). Non greenhouse emissions apart from lead are taken from Delft (1996).

Reprocessing mixed plastics into low grade polymer (PP)

1 tonne Reprocessing of polypropylene used as a proxy of the reprocessing of mixed plastics. Data based on process at Visy plastics, supplemented by Idemat (1996). 10 per cent assumed lost at reprocessing, so process ends up with 0.9 tonne reprocessed low grade polymer output.


20 km Emissions from transport based on an articulated truck, 28 tonne load on 30 tonne truck. Trucking model developed from data provided by Apelbaum (2001) Refer appendices for transport model description.



Item Flow Unit Comment Treatment of waste in landfill


Primary production of PP

0.9 tonne Polypropylene (PP) data is used to represent the avoided product. Applications for mixed plastic recyclate are varied and could potentially displace many kinds of plastic material. For the purposes of this study PP was selected as a typical substitute in line with Grant and James (2005). Reprocessing ends up with 0.9 tonne of reprocessed low grade polymer thereby avoiding 0.9 tonne of virgin PP production. PP production impacts adapted for Australian conditions from the IVAM database.

Data quality table and comment Tabel 24 presents a summary of the data quality for the main processes considered. It shows the data sources used; if they are general data or specific to a company; the age of the data; the geographic location that the data were based on; and, the nature of the technology considered.

Table 24: Data quality for life cycle inventory data modelled for recycling and landfilling of mixed plastics



Impacts of transportation modes

EcoInvent, NGGI, Apelbaum (1997) and Delft


1997–2005

Average technology

Mixed data



Reprocessing of mixed plastics

Visy Plastics, Idemat


2004–2008

Average technology


Avoided materials production

IVAM Australia 1998 Modern technology




References Apelbaum (1997), Australian Transport Task, Energy consumed and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Voluma A, Summary of findings

Delft University of Technology (2001), Idemat database


Electricity Supply Association of Australia (2003), Electricity Australia 2003

Grant, T., James, K., (2005), Life Cycle Impact Data for resource recovery from C&I and C&D waste in Victoria final report, Melbourne, Victoria, Centre for Design at RMIT university (www.cfd.rmit.edu.au)

Grant, T., James, K., Lundie, S., Sonneveld, K., (2001), Life Cycle Assessment for Paper and Packaging Waste Management Scenarios in Victoria, EcoRecycle, Melbourne














-154 kg

�

PP- Kem cor /AU U

�

-0 .418 t CO 2 e

�

- 1. 19 E3 kg

�


�

av erage /AU U

�

-0 .313 t CO 2 e

�

-891 MJ

�

Electricity , high

�

v oltage , NSW ,

�

- 0. 232 t CO 2e

�

- 502 MJ

�

Electricity , high

�

v oltage , Victorian

�

-0 .183 t CO 2 e

�

-702 MJ

�


�

NSW , sent out / AU U

�

- 0. 191 t CO 2e

�

-4 .04 E3 MJ

�

Energy , f rom

�

diesel / AU U

�

-0 .338 t CO 2 e

�

- 3. 54 E3 MJ

�

Energy , f rom f uel

�

oil , just f uel ,

�

- 0. 273 t CO 2e

�

- 630 kg

�

Propene

�

- cat . crack / AU U

�

- 1. 11 t CO 2 e

�

-184 kg

�

Propene

�

f r .gasoil - Kem cor /AU

�

U

�

-0 .333 t CO 2 e

�

-891 MJ

�

Electricity , high

�

v oltage , NSW / AU U

�

- 0. 232 t CO 2e

�

-356 kg

�

PP-Montell Cly de /AU

�

U

�

-0 .914 t CO 2 e

�

-300 kg

�

PP-Montell

�

Geelong /AU U

�

-0 .714 t CO 2 e

�

900 kg

�

PP reprocessing / AU

�

U

�

0 .32 t CO 2e

�

- 502 MJ

�

Electricity , high

�

v oltage , Victoria /AU

�

U

�

-0 .183 t CO 2 e

�

- 917 kg

�

Ref inery products ,

�

at consum er /AU U

�

- 0. 635 t CO 2e

�

-1 .13 m 3

�

Ref ining other

�

ref inery products / AU

�

U

�

- 0. 322 t CO 2e

�

- 0. 964 m 3

�

Crude oil ,

�

im ported /GLO U

�

-0 .227 t CO 2 e

�

- 1. 41 m 3

�


�


�

-0 .276 t CO 2 e

�

- 1E3 kg

�

landf ill of m ixed

�

plastics f rom

�

- 0. 189 t CO 2e

�

19 m 3

�


�

(Sy d Met )/ AU U

�

0. 224 t CO 2e

�

-19 m 3

�

Garbage Coll &Tran

�

( Sy d Met )/ AU U

�

- 0. 185 t CO 2e

�

1 E3 kg

�

Mixed plastics ( kerb )

�

- Collect & reprocess

�

0. 703 t CO 2e

�

1 E3 kg

�


�

- Net benef it of

�

-1 .53 t CO 2e

�

-810 kg

�

Prim ary PP

�

production

�

-2 .05 t CO 2e

�

- 1E3 kg

�

Landf ill m ixed

�

plastics , kerbside

�

source

�

- 0. 189 t CO 2e




-154 kg

�

PP- Kem cor /AU U

�

-13 . 1 GJ LHV

�

- 1. 19 E3 kg

�


�

av erage / AU U

�

- 53 GJ LHV

�

-84 . 2 kg

�

Diesel , at

�

consum er / AU U

�

- 4. 54 GJ LHV

�

-4 .04 E3 MJ

�

Energy , f rom

�

diesel /AU U

�

- 5. 3 GJ LHV

�

-3 .54 E3 MJ

�

Energy , f rom f uel

�

oil, just f uel ,

�

CO 2 ,CH 4 , &

�

-4 .16 GJ LHV

�

-630 kg

�

Propene

�

- cat . crack / AU U

�

- 44 .8 GJ LHV

�

-184 kg

�

Propene

�

f r .gasoil - Kem cor /AU

�

U

�

-13 . 1 GJ LHV

�

- 86 .9 kg

�

Fuel oil , at

�

consum er / AU U

�

-4 .13 GJ LHV

�

-356 kg

�

PP- Montell Cly de / AU

�

U

�

- 28 .6 GJ LHV

�

-300 kg

�

PP- Montell

�

Geelong / AU U

�

- 23 .3 GJ LHV

�

900 kg

�

PP reprocessing / AU

�

U

�

4 .28 GJ LHV

�

-917 kg

�


�

at consum er / AU U

�

-50 . 9 GJ LHV

�

- 1. 13 m 3

�

Ref ining other

�

ref inery products /AU

�

-4 .89 GJ LHV

�

-0 .446 m 3

�

Crude oil ,

�

dom estic / AU U

�

- 16 .3 GJ LHV

�

-0 .964 m 3

�

Crude oil ,

�

im ported / GLO U

�

- 36 .9 GJ LHV

�

- 1. 41 m 3

�


�


�

- 2. 65 GJ LHV

�

- 1E3 kg

�

landf ill of m ixed

�

plastics f rom

�

kerbside

�

- 2. 72 GJ LHV

�

19 m 3

�


�

(Sy d Met )/ AU U

�

3 .21 GJ LHV

�

- 19 m 3

�

Garbage Coll &Tran

�

(Sy d Met )/ AU U

�

- 2. 66 GJ LHV

�

1 E3 kg

�

Mixed plastics (kerb )

�


�

9 .54 GJ LHV

�

1 E3 kg

�

Mixed plastics (kerb )

�

- Net benef it of

�

- 58 .2 GJ LHV

�

-810 kg

�

Prim ary PP

�

production

�

- 65 .1 GJ LHV

�

- 1E3 kg

�

Landf ill m ixed

�

plastics , kerbside

�

source

�

- 2. 72 GJ LHV




-891 MJ

�

Electricity , high

�

v oltage , NSW ,

�

production / AU U

�

-0 .372 kL H 2 O

�

-702 MJ

�


�


�

-0 .305 kL H 2 O

�

- 630 kg

�

Propene

�

-cat .crack /AU U

�

-0 .348 kL H 2 O

�

6 .08 E3 kg

�

Hot Water 80 C/ AU

�

U

�

6. 08 kL H 2 O

�

-891 MJ

�

Electricity , high

�

v oltage , NSW / AU U

�

-0 .372 kL H 2 O

�

- 356 kg

�

PP-Montell Cly de /AU

�

U

�

-0 .576 kL H 2 O

�

- 300 kg

�

PP-Montell

�

Geelong /AU U

�

-0 .351 kL H 2 O

�

900 kg

�

PP reprocessing /AU

�

U

�

12 .4 kL H 2 O

�

1 .21 E4 kg

�

Water (deliv ered )/ AU

�

U

�

12 .2 kL H 2 O

�

900 kg

�

Water and chem ical

�

f or washing f or

�

PP/ AU U

�

12 .2 kL H 2 O

�

- 917 kg

�


�

at consum er / AU U

�

-0 .395 kL H 2 O

�

- 382 kg

�

Water ,

�

reticulated / AU U

�

-0 .382 kL H 2 O

�

-1 .13 m 3

�

Ref ining other

�

ref inery products /AU

�

U

�

-0 .387 kL H 2 O

�

1E3 kg

�


�


�

12 .5 kL H 2 O

�

1E3 kg

�


�

- Net benef it of

�

recy cling

�

11 .4 kL H 2 O

�

- 810 kg

�

Prim ary PP

�

production

�

-1 .14 kL H 2O




900 kg

�

Extrusion of

�

recy cled PP/AU U

�

0.037 tonnes

�

900 kg

�

PP reprocessing /AU

�

U

�

0.0396 tonnes

�

-1E3 kg

�

landf ill of mixed

�

plastics f rom

�

-0.95 tonnes

�

100 kg

�

Landf ill inert waste

�

0.1 tonnes

�

1E3 kg

�

Mixed plastics (kerb)

�


�

0.141 tonnes

�1E3 kg

�

Mixed plastics (kerb)

�

- Net benef it of

�

-0.831 tonnes

�

-810 kg

�

Primary PP

�

production

�

-0.0217 tonnes

�

-1E3 kg

�

Landf ill mixed

�

plastics, kerbside

�

source

�

-0.95 tonnes





-171 kg

�

PP-Kemcor/AU U

�

-0.465 t CO 2e

�

-1.27E3 kg

�


�

average/AU U

�

-0.335 t CO 2e

�

-990 MJ

�


�

NSW , production/AU U

�

-0.258 t CO 2e

�

-558 MJ

�


�

V ictorian

�

production/AU U

�

-0.203 t CO 2e

�

-814 MJ

�


�


�

-0.221 t CO 2e

�

-4.44E3 MJ

�

Energy, f rom diesel/AU

�

U

�

-0.372 t CO 2e

�

-3.79E3 MJ

�

Energy, f rom fuel oil ,

�

just fuel , CO 2,CH4, &

�

N2O/AU U

�

-0.292 t CO 2e

�

-700 kg

�

Propene -cat.crack/AU

�

U

�

-1.23 t CO 2e

�

-204 kg

�

Propene

�


�

-0.37 t CO 2e

�

-990 MJ

�


�

NSW /AU U

�

-0.258 t CO 2e

�

-396 kg

�

PP-Montell Clyde /AU U

�

-1.02 t CO 2e

�

-333 kg

�

PP-Montell Geelong /AU

�

U

�

-0.793 t CO 2e

�

900 kg

�

PP reprocessing /AU U

�

0.32 t CO 2e

�

-558 MJ

�


�

V ictoria /AU U

�

-0.203 t CO 2e

�

-1.02E3 kg

�


�

consumer/AU U

�

-0.705 t CO 2e

�

-1.26 m3

�


�

products/AU U

�

-0.358 t CO 2e

�

-1.03 m3

�

Crude oil ,

�

imported /GLO U

�

-0.243 t CO 2e

�

-1.51 m3

�


�


�

-0.295 t CO 2e

�

19 m3

�


�

(Syd Met )/AU U

�

0.224 t CO 2e

�

1E3 kg

�

Mixed plastics (kerb) -

�

Collect & reprocess

�

0.695 t CO 2e

�1E3 kg

�

Mixed plastics (CI &

�

CD) - Net benef it of

�

recycling

�

-1.59 t CO 2e

�

-900 kg

�

Primary PP production

�

-2.27 t CO 2e




-171 kg

�

PP-Kemcor/AU U

�

-14.6 GJ LHV

�

-1.27E3 kg

�


�

average/AU U

�

-56.7 GJ LHV

�

-4.44E3 MJ

�

Energy, f rom diesel/AU

�

U

�

-5.82 GJ LHV

�

-3.79E3 MJ

�

Energy, f rom fuel oil ,

�


�

N2O/AU U

�

-4.45 GJ LHV

�

-700 kg

�

Propene -cat .crack/AU

�

U

�

-49.8 GJ LHV

�

-204 kg

�

Propene

�


�

-14.6 GJ LHV

�

-94.4 kg

�

Fuel oil , at

�

consumer/AU U

�

-4.49 GJ LHV

�

-396 kg

�


�

-31.8 GJ LHV

�

-333 kg

�


�

U

�

-25.9 GJ LHV

�

900 kg

�


�

4.28 GJ LHV

�

-1.02E3 kg

�


�

consumer/AU U

�

-56.6 GJ LHV

�

-1.26 m3

�


�

products /AU U

�

-5.44 GJ LHV

�

-0.476 m3

�

Crude oil , domestic /AU

�

U

�

-17.4 GJ LHV

�

-1.03 m3

�

Crude oil ,

�

imported/GLO U

�

-39.5 GJ LHV

�

19 m3

�


�

(Syd Met )/AU U

�

3.21 GJ LHV

�

1E3 kg

�

Mixed plastics (kerb ) -

�

Collect & reprocess

�

9.44 GJ LHV

�1E3 kg

�


�


�

recycling

�

-63 GJ LHV

�

-900 kg

�


�

-72.3 GJ LHV




-990 MJ

�

Electric ity , high

�

voltage , NSW ,

�

production /AU U

�

-0.413 kL H 2O

�

-814 MJ

�


�


�

-0.354 kL H 2O

�

-700 kg

�

Propene -cat .crack/AU

�

U

�

-0.386 kL H 2O

�

6.07E3 kg

�

Hot Water 80C/AU U

�

6.08 kL H 2O

�

-990 MJ

�

Electric ity , high

�

voltage, NSW /AU U

�

-0.413 kL H 2O

�

-396 kg

�


�

-0.64 kL H 2O

�

-333 kg

�


�

U

�

-0.39 kL H 2O

�

900 kg

�


�

12.4 kL H 2O

�

1.21E4 kg

�

Water (delivered)/AU U

�

12.2 kL H 2O

�

900 kg

�

Water and chemical for

�

w ashing for PP /AU U

�

12.2 kL H 2O

�

-1.02E3 kg

�


�

consumer/AU U

�

-0.439 kL H 2O

�

-409 kg

�

Water , reticulated /AU

�

U

�

-0.409 kL H 2O

�

-1.26 m3

�


�

products /AU U

�

-0.43 kL H 2O

�

1E3 kg

�

Mixed plastics (kerb ) -

�

Collect & reprocess

�

12.5 kL H 2O

�1E3 kg

�


�


�

recycling

�

11.3 kL H 2O

�

-900 kg

�


�

-1.26 kL H 2O




-990 MJ

�

Electric ity , high

�

voltage , NSW ,

�

production /AU U

�

-0.0163 tonnes

�

-814 MJ

�


�


�

-0.0141 tonnes

�

900 kg

�


�

PP/AU U

�

0.037 tonnes

�

-21.5 kg

�

Fly ash

�

processing//AU U

�

-0.0129 tonnes

�

-990 MJ

�

Electric ity , high

�

voltage, NSW /AU U

�

-0.0163 tonnes

�

-396 kg

�


�

-0.0169 tonnes

�

900 kg

�


�

0.0396 tonnes

�

100 kg

�

Landf ill inert w aste

�

0.1 tonnes

�

1E3 kg

�

Mixed plastics (kerb) -

�

Collect & reprocess

�

0.141 tonnes

�1E3 kg

�


�


�

recycling

�

-0.833 tonnes

�

-900 kg

�


�

-0.0241 tonnes

�

-1E3 kg

�

landf ill of mixed

�

plastics f rom C &I and

�

C&D

�

-0.95 tonnes

�

-1E3 kg

�

Landf ill mixed plastics ,

�

C&I and C &D sources

�

-0.95 tonnes



Rubber tyres

Process Description Tyres are collected and sent to various shredding facilities in NSW, Victoria, South Australia and Queensland. There are numerous avenues for tyre disposal including:

re-use as second hand tyres and retreadable casings supply to the cement industry as tyre derived fuel for energy recovery

shredded and granulated as feedstock material for the production of rubber crumb shredded for civil engineering applications

export where they are used primarily for oil recovery

applied to landfill as a last resort

Determining the benefits of recycling tyres would ideally involve attempting to quantify each of the above potential uses and recycling processes, however this was considered beyond the scope of this study. Instead a single recycling pathway involving the shredding and granulation to produce rubber crumb was selected and modelled.

In the process considered, recycling of rubber tyres is undertaken by cutting the tyres, extracting the metal (which is sold to metal recyclers) and then grinding and sieving the rubber to produce a range of crumb and granule sizes which are then sold and used by rubber manufacturers to make rubber products (a substitute for polybutadiene). In 2000, approximately 100,000 tyres were shredded per year prior to landfill treatment (Atech Group, 2001). During the same period 5 millions of tyres were sent to landfill (Atech Group, 2001), which is why we decided not to take the shredding process into account.

Only one collection system for waste tyres was considered in the model: C&I, C&D collection — the segregated waste collected is sent directly to the reprocessing site without any further sorting process, or associated losses. The model developed takes into account transportation impacts incurred to bring the material from C&I and C&D sources to the material reprocessing facility. Once at the reprocessing facility, the model considers the impacts of material reprocessing.

Figure 38 illustrates the processes considered in determining the overall impact of rubber tyres recycling from C&I and C&D sources (shown to the left of the vertical line), and the processes considered in determining the impact of the processes avoided when recycling rubber tyres (shown to the right of the vertical line).



Figure 38: Processes considered in determining the net impacts of the recycling process from C&I and C&D sources.

Shredding of the tyres and

extraction of steel


to landfill


Primary production of polybutadiene


System Boundary


reprocessor


steel

Reprocessing of steel into

secondary steel

Transport of waste steel to

reprocessing facility

Reprocessing of shredded tyres

into crumbs


Table 25: Benefits and impacts of recycling and avoided landfill of waste tyres from C&I and C&D source (per tonne)

Collection and reprocessing


Primary material

production


Green house gases t CO2-0.03 -1.03 -0.01 -1.04 -1.07

Cumulative energy demand GJ LHV -0.59 -63.36 -0.13 -63.50 -64.08Water use kL H2O 0.24 -52.49 0.00 -52.49 -52.25Solid w aste tonnes -0.10 -0.03 -0.95 -0.98 -1.07

Avoided process impacts(Figure 140 - right hand side) Net benefits of



(Figure 140 - left hand side)

Network diagrams detailing key processes that influence the impact listed in Figure 38 are shown in Figure 39 to Figure 42. For further information regarding interpretation of network diagrams, refer to Understanding Network Diagrams (Figure 1).

Key assumptions Table 26 describes the key processes and data sources used to determine the benefits and impacts associated with the collection, recycling and reprocessing of 1 tonne of tyres. The table also includes the products and processes avoided when 1 tonne of tyres is recycled.



Table 26: Inventory for recycling waste tyres from C&I and C&D source (1 tonne)


Process flows (Figure 38 — left hand side) Waste collection and transport to reprocessor

20 km 20km distance estimate based on a simplified transport analysis for Sydney; refer appendices for discussion on transport. Emissions from transport based on a trucking model developed by the Centre for Design, incorporating trucking data from Apelbaum (2001), Truck backhaul ratio assumed to be 1:2.

Reprocessing tyres: shredding and crumbing

1 tonne Assumes that reprocessing 1 tonne of used tyres ends up with 850 kg of rubber crumb. Assumes 10 litres of diesel required to shred and crumb 1 tonne of tyres (based on survey of recyclers).Grant et. al. (2005). 10lx0.850tonnes=8.5

Transport of waste steel to reprocessing facility


Reprocessing of steel into secondary

steel

100 kg Assumption that 10 per cent of tyres is recoverable steel. Recycled steel produces around 5 per cent less usable metal, so reprocessing 100 kg of steel waste ends up with 95 kg of reprocessed steel output. Emission data from the production of steel through electric arc furnace from NPI, input data fom Strezov (2006)


20 km 20km distance estimate based on a simplified transport analysis for Sydney. Refer transport discussion below. Emissions from transport based on a trucking model developed by the Centre for Design, incorporating trucking data from Apelbaum (2001) and other sources. Truck backhaul ratio assumed to be 1:2.



Primary production of polybutadiene

637 kg Assumed that 850 kg of crumb replace polybutadiene with 25 per cent less material efficiency (637 kg effectively). Polybutadiene manufacture from a European study by Delft (1996).

Primary production of steel

95 kg For 100kg reprocessed 95kg of steel is produced thereby avoiding 95kg of virgin steel production. Input data from BHP (2000), and other sources Emission data from NGGIC (1995) and NPI (2002–2003)

Data Quality Table 27 describes the key processes and data sources used to determine the benefits and impacts associated with the recycling of 1 tonne of waste tyres from C&I and C&D sources. The table also includes the products and processes avoided when 1 tonne of waste tyres are recycled.



Table 27: Data quality for life cycle inventory data modelled for recycling and landfilling of waste tyres from C&I and C&D source







Recycling waste tyres

Grant & James (2005)


2004–2008

Average technology


Avoided virgin polybutadiene production

Delft (1996) Unspecified 1995–1999

Modern technology





Unspecified Mixed Data


Atech Group (2001), A National Approach to Waste Tyres, Atech Group, prepared for Environment Australia, publicised by the Commonwealth Department of Environment

BHP Minerals (2000), LCA of steel and Electricity Production — ACARP Project C8049 — Case Studies B Summary of Inventory Values for Electricity Production, Newcastle


Grant and James (2005), Life Cycle Impact Data for resource recovery from C&I and C&D waste in Victoria final report, Melbourne, Victoria, Centre for Design at RMIT university (www.cfd.rmit.edu.au)


Strezov, L., Herbertson, J. (2006), A life cycle perspective on steel building materials. Sydney, Australian Steel Institute

Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories. (2004). "EcoInvent Database version 1.01." from http://www.ecoinvent.ch/en/index.htm.






0. 314 MJ

�

Electricity , high

�

v oltage , Australian

�

av erage / AU U

�

0 .0856 kgCO 2e

�

0. 314 MJ

�

Electricity , high

�

v oltage , Australian

�

av erage ,

�

0 .0856 kgCO 2e

�

0 .0952 MJ

�


�

NSW , sent out / AU U

�

0 .0259 kgCO 2e

�

0 .0755 MJ

�


�

Victoria , sent out / AU U

�

0. 0277 kgCO 2 e

�

-0 .38 MJ

�

Energy , f rom natural

�

gas /AU U

�

-0 .0223 kgCO 2e

�

-0 .122 kg

�

Iron ore / AU U

�

-0 .0402 kgCO 2e

�

-0 .099 kg

�

Iron ore sinter ,

�

Bluescope Port

�

Kem bla /AU U

�

-0 .0349 kgCO 2e

�

-0 .0921 kg

�

Pig iron , Bluescope

�

Port Kem bla /AU U

�

-0 .0641 kgCO 2e

�

-0 .095 kg

�

Steel , Bluescope Port

�

Kem bla , all v irgin

�

m aterial , AU

�

-0 .157 kgCO 2 e

�

0 .1 kg

�

Recy cling steel , C&I

�

sources , NSW with

�

landf ill av oidance

�

-0 .0441 kgCO 2e

�

0. 1 kg

�

Electro arc steel ,

�

Recy cled , including

�

Sm orgon NPI /AU U

�

0 .113 kgCO 2 e

�

1 kg

�

Rubber ty res (CI &

�

CD ) - Collect &

�

reprocess

�

-0 .0296 kgCO 2e

�

1 kg

�

Rubber ty res ( CI &

�

CD ) - Net benef it of

�

recy cling

�

- 1. 07 kgCO 2 e

�

- 0. 637 kg

�

Prim ary production of

�

Poly butadiene

�

- 1. 03 kgCO 2 e




0.314 MJ

�

Electric ity , high

�

voltage, Australian

�

average/AU U

�

0.895 MJ LHV

�

0.314 MJ

�

Electric ity , high

�

voltage, Australian

�

average,

�

0.895 MJ LHV

�

-0.0921 kg

�

Pig iron, Bluescope

�

Port Kembla /AU U

�

-1.71 MJ LHV

�

-0.095 kg

�


�

Kembla, all v irgin

�

material , AU

�

-2 MJ LHV

�

-0.0246 kg

�

Coke for

�

s teelmaking /AU U

�

-0.806 MJ LHV

�

0.1 kg

�

Recycling steel , C& I

�

sources, NSW w ith

�

landf ill avoidance

�

-0.794 MJ LHV

�

0.1 kg

�

Electro arc steel ,

�

Recycled, including

�

Smorgon NPI /AU U

�

1.21 MJ LHV

�

1 kg

�

Rubber tyres (CI &

�

CD) - Collect &

�

reprocess

�

-0.586 MJ LHV

�1 kg

�

Rubber tyres (CI &

�


�

recycling

�

-64.1 MJ LHV

�

-0.637 kg

�


�

Polybutadiene

�

-63.4 MJ LHV



Figure 41: Recycling process network diagram — Water indicator. Processes contributing less than 0.5 per cent to total are not shown. Major processes from results table above are shown shaded. �

0. 0216 kg

�

Cem ent , portland / AU

�

U

�

0. 000387 KL H 2O

�

- 0. 0921 kg

�

Pig iron , Bluescope

�

Port Kem bla / AU U

�

0. 000342 KL H 2O

�

- 0. 024 kg

�

Use of blast f urnace

�

slag /AU U

�

0. 000384 KL H 2O

�

0 .024 kg

�

Blast f urnace slag -

�

credit to steel

�

production / AU U

�

0. 000386 KL H 2O

�

- 0. 095 kg

�


�


�

m aterial , AU

�

7. 14 E-5 KL H 2O

�

0. 1 kg

�


�

sources , NSW with

�

landf ill av oidance

�

0. 000236 KL H 2O

�

1 kg

�


�

CD ) - Collect &

�

reprocess

�

0. 000238 KL H 2O

�

1 kg

�


�

CD ) - Net benef it of

�

recy cling

�

-0 .0523 KL H 2 O

�

- 0. 637 kg

�


�

Poly butadiene

�

-0 .0525 KL H 2 O




- 0. 122 kg

�

Iron ore /AU U

�

-0 .0141 kg

�

- 0. 0921 kg

�

Pig iron , Bluescope Port

�

Kem bla / AU U

�

-0 .0138 kg

�

- 0. 095 kg

�


�


�

m aterial , AU

�

-0 .0206 kg

�

- 1 kg

�

Landf ill plastics , C &I

�

sources AU , EEBR

�

2008

�

- 0. 95 kg

�

- 0. 1 kg

�

Landf ill Steel , C &I and

�

C&D sources

�

- 0. 0986 kg

�

- 0. 1 kg

�

landf ill of steel f rom

�

C &I and C &D

�

- 0. 0986 kg

�

0. 1 kg

�


�

sources , NSW with

�

landf ill av oidance EEBR

�

-0 .0996 kg

�

0. 1 kg

�

Electro arc steel ,

�

Recy cled , including

�

Sm orgon NPI /AU U

�

0. 0145 kg

�

- 1 kg

�

landf ill of rubber C &I

�

EEBR 2008

�

- 0. 95 kg

�

1 kg

�

Rubber ty res ( CI & CD )

�


�

-0 .0996 kg

�

1 kg

�

Rubber ty res ( CI & CD )

�

- Net benef it of

�

recy cling

�

-1 .07 kg

�

- 0. 637 kg

�


�

Poly butadiene

�

-0 .0252 kg

Documents

Environmental benefi ts of recycling · 2017. 10. 12. · The extended benefits of recycling – life cycle assessment: Appendix 6 Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water