Life Cycle Assessment of beverage carton collection systems

Transcription

1 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Final report Life Cycle Assessment of beverage carton collection systems Earth, Environmental and Life Sciences Princetonlaan CB Utrecht P.O. Box TA Utrecht The Netherlands T infodesk@tno.nl Date 23 December 2013 Author(s) Number of pages Number of appendices Sponsor Project name Dr. T.N. (Tom) Ligthart, M.S. (Mark) Valkering MSc. Ir. A.M.M. (Toon) Ansems 79 (excl. appendices) 10 (A to J) Kennisinstituut Duurzame Verpakkingen (KIDV) LCA Pilot Beverage Cartons Project number All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced and/or published by print, photoprint, microfilm or any other means without the previous written consent of TNO. In case this report was drafted on instructions, the rights and obligations of contracting parties are subject to either the General Terms and Conditions for commissions to TNO, or the relevant agreement concluded between the contracting parties. Submitting the report for inspection to parties who have a direct interest is permitted TNO

2 2 / 79 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036

3 TNO report TNO 2013 R / 79 Summary Introduction The Dutch framework treaty on packaging waste between packaging industry, municipalities and government of June 27 th 2012 has the aim to increase the sustainability of packaging chains. For this the environmental impact over the complete packaging chain should be decreased. The end-of-life stage is important for reaching this aim. The treaty states that a pilot for beverage carton recycling will be executed in This means that prior to 2014 in a representative number of municipalities a pilot has to be executed with regard to the collection and recycling of beverage cartons. The study should include both source separation systems as automatic recovery systems in the municipalities. The pilot is executed under supervision of the KIDV, Netherlands Institute for Sustainable Packaging, and will yield appropriate information on: 1 the quantity and quality of the collected and recycled beverage cartons that can be attained in practice; 2 the costs related to the collection and recycling; 3 the environmental performance of the collection and recycling and 4 the effect on other collection systems. The environmental impacts will be assessed using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), which is a technique to assess environmental impacts associated with the several stages of a product's life cycle. Here the focus will be at the end-of-life stage. The LCA has been commissioned to TNO and in this report the environmental performance of the collection-recycling systems is compared. The report has a public character. To ensure the quality of the LCA and its results the LCA has been reviewed by an external review committee composed of three specialists in the field of waste treatment and LCA. Goal and Scope Goal The goal of the Life Cycle Assessment is to provide the Netherlands Institute for Sustainable Packaging (KIDV) with: - The environmental performance of the several collection-recycling systems for post-consumer beverage cartons; - An explanation of the environmental performance of each collection-recycling system and the underlying processes; - A comparison of the collection-recycling systems with each other and with the reference: treatment of beverage cartons in a Dutch Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator (MSWI). The study is thus a comparative LCA study aiming at showing the differences between the reference situation and the alternative collection-recycling systems and showing the potential differences between these alternative systems.

4 4 / 79 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Scope The study has its scope on the current situation in the municipalities participating in the pilot. The collected cartons are sent to both the current and an experimental beverage carton recycling installation. As consumers may clean the beverage cartons before offering them for collection this has been included in the LCA. Except for the experimental recycling the technology used, is the current mix of technologies in the Netherlands and in the countries related to the collectionrecycling systems. The scope in the LCA is such that activities in a system that produce a product that avoids the production by another system may subtract this. The MSWI not only acts as a waste treatment for the beverage cartons not collected but also produces electricity delivered to the Dutch grid and produces heat used by industries and households. The environmental impacts of those are then subtracted from the system studied. This study was originally proposed to be based on the, in LCA most often used, attributional approach, no consequences of shift in waste streams were considered. The discussion that took place with the review committee at the beginning of the project led to applying the consequential LCA approach for those parts of the collection systems where a marked potential influence on the markets outside the systems can be expected. Following the consequential approach of modelling the studied systems affects the outcome of this study. When more beverage cartons are collected this leads to a reduction of burnable waste for the Dutch MSWIs. Due to the already present under capacity of these MSWIs the need for burnable waste increases. This need is fulfilled by importing refuse derived fuel (RDF). The MSW from which this RDF is made-off was otherwise landfilled. The increased collection of beverage cartons thus increased the import of RDF from the UK, which showed to be beneficial as landfill emissions from MSW in the UK are reduced. Another example of the consequential approach is that in many LCA studies on paper and board recycling sulphate pulp from European softwood is often the avoided or marginal product. In this study sulphate pulp made from Eucalyptus subspecies has been selected as the marginal product. As this is a fast growing species this especially affects the land use related impacts. Functional unit The function of the studied system is to dispose beverage cartons that have lost their function by Dutch consumers. These consumers may separate the beverage cartons completely, partly or not from the other Municipal Solid Waste (MSW). The degree into which the beverage cartons are actually recycled may differ between different systems. In order to yield comparable results, the functional unit is defined at the moment the beverage cartons lose their function to consumers as a container for beverages. The functional unit is the following: The collection, treatment and recycling of 1000 kg post-consumer beverage cartons. In this definition, 1000 kg post-consumer beverage cartons refer to the cartons together with dirt and moisture attached to and/or contained by the cartons (e.g. product residues). The dotted lines in Figure S1 indicate the 1000 kg beverage

5 TNO report TNO 2013 R / 79 cartons this functional unit refers to. The figure further shows how the beverage cartons (BC) and other streams flow through the system. The collection of beverage cartons may lead to the consumer putting other materials, e.g. plastic packaging waste, to the waste beverage cartons. These are the residual materials in Figure S1. Figure S1 Example of the pathway that 1000 kg post-consumer beverage cartons may follow. Not all waste flows of the recycling are shown. Systems studied The functional unit is applied for the several collection and source separation alternatives (see 3.3). A schematic representation of one of these scenarios is given in Figure S1 The different systems are: 1 Separated collection at source of only beverage cartons. The beverage cartons are either collected by a garbage truck at the kerbside or dropped-off by the consumer in a container in the neighbourhood or at the communal waste station. 2 Combined collection of beverage cartons together with plastic packaging waste. The beverage cartons are co-collected in mini containers, plastic bags at the kerbside or drop-offed in containers or at the communal waste station. 3 Combined collection of beverage cartons together with waste paper/board. The beverage cartons are in some cases put in a plastic bag to keep the product remnants separate from the waste paper and board. 4 Separation of beverage cartons and plastic packaging out of MSW. Together with the MSW consumers discard their beverage cartons in their MSW container with the rest of the MSW. The MSW is send to a material recovery facility, which recovers a mixture of plastic packages and beverage cartons. In practice the beverage cartons will not be dry and clean. This degree of moisture and contamination is of course dependent on the behaviour of the discarding civilians, the way of separation at source and the additional treatment (some evaporation of the moisture will happen during the logistic handlings and in the treatment plants). The residual beverage cartons, not separated at source or not separated out of MSW, are incinerated in an average Dutch MSWI. This residual part will be determined with the help of the known overall amount brought on the market.

6 6 / 79 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Life Cycle Impact Assessment For the actual Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) the CML 2001 LCIA method 1 will be used. It covers several impact categories including abiotic depletion, global warming, ecotoxicity and land competition (see for the complete list Table S1). The baseline impact categories from this method will be used in this study. The CML 2001 method has been used all over Europe and the rest of the world also for studies focussing on waste treatment (including recycling, recovery and disposal). Table S1 Impact categories and their abbreviations and units used in this study. Impact category Abbreviation Unit Land competition LC m 2 a Abiotic Resource Depletion Potential ADP Kg Sb eq. Global Warming Potential GWP Kg CO 2 eq. Ozone Depletion Potential ODP Kg CFC-11 eq. Human Toxicity Potential HTP Kg 1,4-DB eq. Fresh water Aquatic Eco-toxicity Potential FAETP Kg 1,4-DB eq. Marine aquatic Eco-toxicity Potential MAETP Kg 1,4-DB eq. Terrestrial Eco-toxicity Potential TETP Kg 1,4-DB eq. Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential POCP Kg C 2 H 2 eq. Acidification Potential AP Kg SO 2 eq. Eutrophication Potential EP Kg PO 3-4 eq. Additional impact category and flow indicators Depletion of Soil Organic Matter SOM kg organic C Cumulative Energy Demand CED MJ Water Consumption Water m 3 The environmental relevance of a land use indicator base on the impacts of only the occupation of land itself (LC) is of limited environmental relevance. The land use indicator LU is based on a highly relevant parameter of the soil system, SOM. LU addresses an important impact of land use on the (soil) ecosystem. Aggregation As an additional step aggregation of the contributions to the different environmental categories of the CML method can be done. For this purpose the Shadow Prices methodology 2 can be applied. It is based on the mitigation costs to reach society accepted policy goals and was developed for the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment to enable decision makers to translate an environmental profile into a single indicator. It must be mentioned that the use of shadow prices is not in conformity with the ISO standards for LCA nor with the Handbook of the International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD). 1 Guinée, JB et al. (2002) Life Cycle Assessment, an operational guide to the ISO standards, Final report, CML, Leiden Harmelen Toon van, Korenromp René, Deutekom Ceiloi van, Ligthart Tom, Leeuwen Saskia van and Gijlswijk René van, (2007) The price of toxicity. Methodology for the assessment of shadow prices for human toxicity, ecotoxicity and abiotic depletion. In: Quantified Eco-Efficiency. An Introduction with Applications. Series: Eco-Efficiency in Industry and Science, Vol 22. Huppes, Gjalt; Ishikawa, Masanobu (Eds.)

7 TNO report TNO 2013 R / 79 Results Presenting the eleven impact categories for the five alternatives studied yields a picture that is not easy to interpret. In this summary we show an excerpt of four important impact categories in Figure S2. The selection was made based upon their important contribution to the total shadow costs shown in Figure S3. Based on the results of the sensitivity analyses we have replaced the area use based CML indicator LC for land use impacts by the indicator LU recommended by the ILCD. This indicator is based on the loss of soil organic matter (SOM) and is much more environmentally relevant. Figure S2 Partial environmental profile of the MSWI reference and the for collection alternatives. The alternative with the largest absolute score has been set to 100%. The greener the colour the higher the environmental benefit. From Figure S2 it becomes clear that the system of post-separation where the beverage cartons are separated from the rest of the MSW has the best performance. The translation of the complete environmental profile of eleven indicators into a single indicator has been done by applying the shadow price for each impact category. This results in an easy comparison of the five alternatives (see Figure S3). The MSWI reference shows for a number of impact categories like human toxicity an environmental burden (positive sign of the shadow costs), for others like global warming an environmental benefit. The latter is due to the avoided incineration of fossil foils by power plants delivering electricity to the Dutch grid.

8 8 / 79 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Figure S3 Shadow costs of the five alternative systems showing the contribution of each impact category. The colour scale indicates with green an environmental benefit, with orange an environmental burden. A general image that appears from Figure S3 is that the post-separation system has the best performance as it shows the largest environmental benefits and does not show an impact (a + sign) for any of the impact categories. For global warming the benefits have to do with the need for import of Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) from the UK as less beverage cartons are used in the post-separation power plant. Due to this import municipal solid waste is diverted from landfills to RDF for export and so avoids the emission of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, from landfills. Landfill gas incineration is assumed to be in place, however methane emissions do occur 3. Furthermore the beverage cartons that are not separated in the sorting process are used for energy recovery in the post-separation power plant. Finally, recovered fibres from the beverage carton from the recycling and recycling by-products contribute to the benefit. The considerable contribution of Land use to the environmental benefits of the post-separation alternative is a consequence of bringing secondary pulp (or products from that pulp) made by recycling of the primary fibres in the beverage carton onto the market. This prevents the expansion of Eucalyptus subspecies (ssp) plantations in South-east Asia, South America and Africa. As these plantations lead to a loss of soil organic matter that had been built up under the previous land use at the locations of the plantations the production of the secondary pulp is beneficial. The systems that in general tend to have the next best performance are cocollection with plastic packaging waste and separate collection. The MSWI reference is the least performing alternative. 3 Emission of 0,0206 kg methane per kg MSW.

9 TNO report TNO 2013 R / 79 Sensitivity analyses An important sensitivity analysis was applying other LCIA methods than the CML method. Two alternatives were selected: the ReCiPe midpoint method combined with specific shadow prices and the ReCiPe endpoint method. Although the shadow costs for ReCiPe were in every case higher than for the base case the ranking of the systems only changed very slightly. Co-collection with paper and board scored relatively better when using the ReCiPe endpoint method, while the co-collection system with plastic got a relatively lower environmental benefit. The post-separation system has in all three cases the largest environmental benefit. Consumer cleaning is a topic for which no reliable data could be retrieved and some assumptions on water and energy use thus had to be made. For the treatment of the rinsing/cleaning water a worst case assumption based on yoghurt was made. The contributions to an impact category are on average 3% for all impacts except EP. Here the effluent of the waste water treatment plant shows contributions of over 20%. As this is most likely a worst case approach we did not further consider a sensitivity analysis for consumer cleaning. For the systems where the beverage cartons are collected together with a carrier stream (co-collection with paper & board and co-collection with plastic), a part of the carrier stream may be lost in the sorting process. We thus made two scenarios in which we applied a different approach to the losses, not based on the amount of collected beverage cartons but based on a 1% or 5% loss of the carrier stream. The co-collection with plastic as carrier had a relatively high sensitivity. This is due to the production of new plastic material that is needed to replace the lost secondary material. For the high loss situation this loss of carrier material is of such magnitude that it almost completely compensates the environmental benefits of the beverage carton recycling. For paper and board as carrier the effect of the scenarios is the other way round. The benefits of energy recovery from incineration of the paper and board lost due to contamination are slightly higher than those of recycling paper. Therefore, the scenario with high loss of the paper and board carrier stream has a slightly larger environmental benefit than the base case situation. Evaluation and Conclusions Evaluation The total recovery rate of the collection systems, that is the collection rate times sorting efficiencies times pulping efficiency, appears to be the parameter explaining the environmental performance of a system. The correlation between recovery rate and environmental performance is very high as is seen in Figure S4.

10 10 / 79 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Figure S4 The relation between the recovery rate of the systems and the shadow costs. R square and the regression line are based upon including the data points of the three sub-systems (not shown here) of the separate collections (for details see the main report). It is likely that the collection rates in the municipalities that introduced beverage carton recycling with this pilot will increase in the future. It is also likely that sorting efficiencies will increase. This has the implication that the environmental performance of the collection systems will also increase given the strong correlation between the total recovery rate and the environmental performance. An issue that proved to be difficult to model is the cross contamination of other recyclables when co-collecting the beverage cartons with waste plastic packaging or waste paper and board. No reliable data could be collected in this study, nor in that of the WUR. A sensitivity analysis has been used to explore the impact of this cross contamination. Conclusions Based upon the results and the sensitivity analyses the main conclusions for the LCA are: All considered collection systems show an environmental benefit compared to the MSWI reference. The overall recovery rate is strongly determining the environmental benefit of a system; the higher the collection response and the sorting efficiency, the higher the environmental benefit. The post-separation of beverage cartons out of municipal waste has the largest environmental benefit. This because of the 100% collection rate and relatively high sorting efficiency which results in almost 60% of the incoming fibres to go to recycling. The incineration of beverage cartons in a MSWI shows an environmental benefit but has the lowest environmental benefits of all alternatives.

11 TNO report TNO 2013 R / 79 The avoidance of the production of primary pulp out of for instance Eucalyptus wood by the recycling of beverage cartons has a highly relevant contribution to the environmental benefit. In addition to the recycling of paper fibres the treatment of the by-products polyethylene and aluminium in a clinker kiln gives an important environmental advantage as they act as secondary fuels. It substitutes the application of hard coal and for that reason a real environmental benefit exists. A future increase of the collection response and of the sorting efficiency will improve the environmental performance of the considered systems.

12 12 / 79 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036

13 TNO report TNO 2013 R / 79 Contents Summary... 3 List of abbreviations Introduction Pilot for beverage carton recycling How to read this report Goal and Scope Goal Decision context Scope Functional unit System boundaries Impact assessment method Limitations of the study Review Life Cycle Inventory Introduction Data inventory Assumptions in the inventory Marginal processes in the consequential approach Incineration of MSW Energy production of Dutch municipal solid waste incinerators Recycled beverage cartons pulp Recycling and recovery of non-fibre components Energy recovery refuse derived fuel from post separation Life Cycle Impact Assessment Introduction Specific activities/processes Scenarios Comparison Sensitivity Analysis Introduction Evaluation and Conclusions Evaluation Conclusions References Authentication... 79

14 14 / 79 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Appendices A. Recommendations of the Technological Environmental Review Committee 31th May 2013 B. Recommendations of the Technological Environmental Review Committee 26 th November 2013 C. Extensive Goal and Scope definition D. Extensive inventory E. Characterised values LCIA F. Life Cycle Impact Assessment G. Sensitivity Analysis H. Non-characterised substances short term I. Non-characterised substances long term J. Future Outlook

15 TNO report TNO 2013 R / 79 List of abbreviations Abbreviation ACE ADP ALO AP BC CC CED CHP CML COD D&M Diftar EP FAETP Fdepl Fecotox Feutro GWP Htox HTP ILCD IR ISO KIDV LC LCA LCI LCIA LU MAETP Mdepl Mecotox Meutro MSW MSWI NIR NLT OD ODP PAH PE PET PM POCP Explanation Alliance for Beverage Cartons and the Environment Abiotic Resource Depletion Potential Agricultural Land Occupation Acidification Potential Beverage Carton Climate change Cumulative Energy Demand Combined Heat and Power Institute of Environmental Science Leiden Chemical Oxygen Demand Dirt and Moisture Differentiated tariff Eutrophication Potential Fresh water Aquatic Eco-toxicity Potential Fossil depletion Freshwater ecotoxicity Freshwater eutrophication Global Warming Potential Human toxicity Human Toxicity Potential International Reference Life Cycle Data System Ionising radiation International Organization for Standardization Kennisinstituut Duurzaam Verpakken Land competition Life Cycle Assessment Life Cycle Inventory Life Cycle Impact Assessment Land Use; loss of soil organic matter Marine aquatic Eco-toxicity Potential Metal depletion Marine ecotoxicity Marine eutrophication Municipal Solid Waste Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator Near Infrared Natural land transformation Ozone depletion Ozone Depletion Potential Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Polyethylene Polyethylene terephthalate Particulate matter formation Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential

16 16 / 79 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 POF PP RDF REC REPA RIVM SOM SRF ssp Tacid TCDD Tecotox TETP ULO VOC Wdepl WPB WRAP WWTP Photochemical oxidant formation Polypropylene Refuse Derived Fuel ReststoffenEnergieCentrale; power plant using RDF REPA Boltersdorf GmbH Netherlands National Institute for Public Health and the Environment Soil Organic Matter Solid Recovered Fuel Subspecies Terrestrial acidification 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Terrestrial ecotoxicity Terrestrial Eco-toxicity Potential Urban land occupation Volatile Organic Compound Water depletion Waste Paper and Board Waste & Resources Action Programme Waste Water Treatment Plant

17 TNO report TNO 2013 R / 79 1 Introduction 1.1 Pilot for beverage carton recycling The Dutch framework treaty on packaging waste between packaging industry, municipalities and government of June 27 th 2012 has the aim to increase the sustainability of packaging chains. The environmental impact over the complete packaging chain should be decreased. The end-of-life stage is important for reaching this aim. The treaty states that a pilot for beverage carton recycling will be executed in This means that prior to 2014 in a representative number of municipalities a pilot has to be executed with regard to the collection and recycling of beverage cartons, implying that both the collection systems source separation and automatic recovery systems are studied in the municipalities. The pilot is executed under supervision of the KIDV (Netherlands institute sustainable packaging) and yields appropriate information on: 1 the quantity and quality of the collected and recycled beverage cartons that can be attained in practice; 2 the costs related to the issues named under 1); 3 the environmental performance of the collection and recycling and 4 the effect on other collection systems. The KIDV is independent as decisions are taken in the board which is composed of the three parties that have signed the treaty on packaging waste. The environmental impacts will be assessed using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), which is a technique to assess environmental impacts associated with the several stages of a product's life cycle. Here the focus will be at the end-of-life stage. The LCA compares the environmental performance of the collection-recycling systems and has a public character. To ensure the quality of the LCA and its results the LCA has been reviewed by an external review committee composed of three specialists in the field of waste treatment and LCA. 1.2 How to read this report After this introduction this report continues with the goal and scope definition (Chapter 2), where the goal, scope, system boundaries and limitations of this study will be further discussed. In Chapter 3, Life Cycle Inventory, the studied systems and the way they are modelled will be explained. To improve the readability of this document, a more detailed account of this inventory is given in appendix D Extensive inventory. The base for this assessment will be attributional modelling, but for those processes that have a strong influence on other markets a consequential approach is taken. Chapter 4 Marginal processes in the consequential approach explains for which processes a consequential approach is used and how this is modelled.

18 18 / 79 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 The results of the life cycle impact assessment are presented in chapter 5. First the environmental impacts of some specific processes (e.g. consumer cleaning or the incineration with energy recovery of the beverage cartons) are presented and explained. Thereafter the results for the several different collection systems are given. After the environmental impacts of the different systems are determined, a comparison has been made to see which systems have better environmental performance, and how the differences can be explained. For some important modelling choices the sensitivity of the results is determined in sensitivity analyses. For readability reasons, only the most important analyses are included in the report. These are the choice of land competition (LC) versus land use (LU), the impact assessment methodology and the loss of carrier material for the systems with co-collection. The other sensitivity analyses (state of the art recycling, the inclusion of long-term emissions and the emission of biogenic carbon dioxide are included in the appendix of this report. This assessment is based on the current situation in the pilot study on beverage carton collection and recycling. An outlook for the future can be made by constructing a scenario based on the future development of collection rates and efficiencies of the sorting processes. The results of this future outlook are given in appendix J Future Outlook. Finally, in chapter 7, conclusions are drawn from the results of the LCIA and from the results of the sensitivity analyses.

19 TNO report TNO 2013 R / 79 2 Goal and Scope 2.1 Goal The goal of the Life Cycle Assessment is to provide the KIDV with: The environmental performance of the several collection-recycling systems for post-consumer beverage cartons; An explanation of the environmental performance of each collection-recycling system and the underlying processes; A comparison of the collection-recycling systems with each other and with the reference: treatment of beverage cartons in a Dutch Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator (MSWI). The study is thus a comparative LCA study aiming at showing the differences between the reference situation and the alternative collection-recycling systems and showing the potential differences between these alternative systems. The commissioner of the study KIDV is the principal audience of the study. Secondly, the study wants to inform the participating municipalities about the environmental performance of the collection-recycling system they use compared to the situation where the post-consumer beverage cartons are collected with the Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) and are send to an MSWI. However, although the study is not directly aimed at this informing the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment this Ministry is represented in the board of the KIDV and so the Ministry is also part of the report s audience. 2.2 Decision context The International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook (European Commission et al., 2010a) describes a number of archetype goal situations: A, B, C1, and C2. The requirements that are set for an LCA are dependent of the relevant situation. The main differences between the archetypal goal Situations A, B, and C lie in the Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) modelling. What these situations cover is explained in appendix C. An overview of the situations is given in Table 1. Table 1 Combination of two main aspects of the decision-context: decision orientation and kind of consequences in background system or other systems (European Commission et al., 2010a).

20 20 / 79 TNO report TNO 2013 R Scope The first question to be asked is whether or not the LCA is made in the context of decision making. In case of this pilot the aim is to provide the KIDV with the current environmental performance of the collection-recycling systems participating in the pilot. So, strictly speaking there is no decision context, the approach of situation C: environmental accounting could thus be followed (see Table 1). However, the pilot is conducted in the context of The Dutch framework treaty on packaging waste between packaging industry, municipalities and government of June 27 th The results of the pilot are likely to be used in a decision making context. In that case the situations A and B are relevant and the question is now What is the scale of the changes in the background or other systems due to this pilot or even due to introduction of beverage carton collection and recycling in the Netherlands? It is expected that some of the changes in the background systems due to the pilot are at such scale that they overcome thresholds and trigger structural changes of installed capacity elsewhere via market mechanisms. Therefore, situation B applies. Modelling in situation B requires the inclusion of long-term marginal processes (consequential approach). Using long-term marginal processes introduces additional uncertainty as they address processes likely to be affected in the future. In an LCA one wants to keep uncertainty as small as possible because the larger the uncertainty the larger the differences between alternatives have to be for those differences to be significant. For this reason we will limit the consequential approach to those influences on the background and other systems that have clearly proven to be currently affected. Further details on the way we have applied the consequential approach can be found in Appendix C Extensive Goal and Scope definition The study has its scope on the current situation in the municipalities participating in the pilot. The collected cartons are sent to both the current and an experimental beverage carton recycling installation. The experimental recycling installation is, when the recycling of beverage cartons increases in the future, a likely candidate for part of the beverage cartons. Except for the experimental recycling the technology used is the current mix of technologies in the Netherlands and in the countries related to the collectionrecycling systems. 2.4 Functional unit The function of the studied system is to dispose a certain quantity of beverage cartons that have lost their function from Dutch consumers. These consumers may separate the beverage cartons completely, partly or not. The degree into which the beverage cartons are recycled may differ between different systems. In order to yield comparable results, the functional unit is defined at the moment the beverage cartons lose their function to consumers as a container for beverages.

21 TNO report TNO 2013 R / 79 The functional unit is as follows: The collection, treatment and recycling of 1000 kg post-consumer beverage cartons. In this definition, 1000 kg post-consumer beverage cartons refer to the cartons together with dirt and moisture attached to and/or contained by the cartons (e.g. product residues). See also the figures in paragraph 3.2.1; the dotted lines indicate to which 1000 kg beverage cartons this functional unit refers. 2.5 System boundaries As was said earlier in this report the system starts when the beverage carton loses its function at the consumer. This may be at home, but also when the beverage carton is used outside the consumers home e.g. at school or at the office. Especially for those systems where the cartons do not go into the waste bin and are stored for some time on the consumers premises it can be expected that some of the consumers will rinse or clean the beverage cartons to some extent to prevent foul odours developing from the contents left in the cartons. When this rinsing/cleaning occurs it is also part of the system. It is very likely that for some collection systems consumers will clean part of the beverage cartons at home to prevent odours forming from the cartons. The functional unit also includes the treatment (cleaning, rinsing) of the cartons by the consumer. When no separation at source or post separation takes place the beverage cartons will be treated with the rest of the (MSW). Furthermore it includes the transport and sorting of residual materials such as other packaging, glass, metals et cetera that are added to the waste beverage cartons by the consumer. This only applies to the beverage cartons offered to the beverage carton collection systems, excluding the stream that goes to the MSWI reference scenario. The functional unit is applied for the several collection and source separation alternatives (see 3.3). A schematic representation of these scenarios is given in Figure 1 to Figure 4. The different systems are: 1 Separated collection at source of only beverage cartons 2 Combined separated collection of plastic packaging waste and beverage cartons 3 Combined separated collection of paper/board and beverage cartons 4 Separation of beverage cartons and plastic packaging out of MSW In practice the beverage cartons will not be dry and clean. This degree of moisture and contamination is of course dependent on the behaviour of the discarding civilians, the way of separation at source and the additional treatment (some evaporation of the moisture will happen during the logistic handlings and in the treatment plants). The residual beverage cartons, not separated at source or not separated out of MSW, are incinerated in an average Dutch MSWI. This residual part will be determined with the help of the known overall amount brought on the market.

22 22 / 79 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 The several collection-recycling systems (see Table 3) are seen as system alternatives for which the same functional unit will be applied. The influence of differences in contamination between these alternatives on the environmental impact will be shown in the LCA results. Also the impact of cross contamination on the recycling possibilities of plastics and of paper/cardboard will be researched and the environmental consequences will be calculated. In this study the foreground system includes the rinsing/cleaning by the consumer, the collection or drop-off of the beverage cartons (including transport), the cross docking station and the recycling of the beverage cartons. Furthermore it includes the transport and sorting, not the incineration, of residual materials such as other packaging, glass, metals et cetera that are added to the waste beverage cartons by the consumer. The incineration of these residuals is excluded as they normally would also end up in the MSW that is send to the MSWI. The background system consists of other systems providing a function to the foreground system, e.g. the MSWI, generation of hot water and the reprocessing of the by-products from recycled beverage cartons. The system boundaries exclude infrastructure such as the garbage trucks, roads, buildings, installations and the electricity grid itself. The reference is the situation that occurs for most of the non-participating municipalities in the Netherlands; the beverage cartons are collected together with other MSW and are sent, either directly or via a cross-docking station, to a nearby MSWI. In this MSWI part of the energy that comes free as heat during incineration is used to produce steam, which in its turn is used to produce electricity or is delivered to a heat network. Part of the produced electricity is sold and delivered to the national grid. The heat and electricity delivered to external parties avoids the production of heat and electricity. The consequences for the inventory modelling are explained in chapter 4 of this document. Figure 1 The system boundaries of the reference situation, incineration of post-consumer beverage cartons in an MSWI with energy recovery.

23 TNO report TNO 2013 R / 79 Figure 2 System boundaries of the separate collection of post-consumer beverage cartons. The beverage cartons that are not separated go with the MSW to the MSWI. Figure 3 System boundaries of the co-collection system of post-consumer beverage cartons. The beverage cartons that are not separated go with the MSW to the MSWI.

24 24 / 79 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Figure 4 System boundaries of the post-separation of post-consumer beverage cartons. 2.6 Impact assessment method When all the inventory data have been collected and have been related to the functional unit the next step is to perform the impact assessment. For this several life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) methods are available. In appendix C more details and explanation regarding the choice of LCIA method are given. For the LCIA the CML 2001 LCIA method (Guinée, JB et al. 2002) will be used. It includes several impact categories including abiotic depletion, global warming, ecotoxicity and land competition (see for the complete list Table 2). The baseline impact categories from this method will be used in this study. The CML 2001 method has been used all over Europe and the rest of the world also for studies focussing on waste treatment (including recycling, recovery and disposal). However, other LCIA methods also exist and are commonly applied such as EcoIndicator 99, ReCiPe and the methods recommended by the ILCD (European Commission et al., 2011). ReCiPe (Goedkoop et al., 2009) and some of the methods recommended by the ILCD will be used in a sensitivity analysis to see whether the ranking of the alternatives is affected. In our impact assessment we take the emission of carbon dioxide from biogenic sources, such as the fibres in the cardboard, as carbon neutral. While CO 2 from fossil sources has a characterisation factor of 1 kg CO 2 eq. for global warming potential (GWP), biogenic based CO 2 has a characterisation factor of 0 kg CO 2 eq. About the last impact category, Land Competition, considerable discussion has taken place since it was introduced. Land Competition, expressed as area times time (m 2 a), refers to the use of land by a certain activity. Bio-based product systems, as that of the beverage carton and its recycling are, show compared to fossil based systems a large impact on this impact category. However, a large impact does not mean that it greatly affects the ecosystems. In ReCiPe the situation for the midpoint indicators of agricultural and urban land occupation is in fact the same. Additionally natural land transformation (m 2 ) is used as an impact category. At midpoint level, no differentiation to land use types is made, due to the uncertainties. The endpoint level does consider the uncertainties in land occupation and land transformation and includes land occupation and transformation into the endpoint damage to ecosystem diversity (unit y). In the ILCD Handbook (European

25 TNO report TNO 2013 R / 79 Commission et al., 2011) it is said that the midpoint approach to land use in CML and ReCiPe lacks environmental relevance. The recommended method for land use impacts is developed by Milà i Canals et al. (2007) and uses a single indicator (loss of Soil Organic Matter or SOM) to describe the impact on soil quality as a whole. This method will be used as an additional impact category in this study because of its environmental relevance. Additional to the environmental midpoint indicators two flow indicators will be used: Cumulative Energy Demand (CED in MJ) and Water Consumption (in m 3 ). Table 2 Impact categories and their abbreviations and units used in this study. Impact category Abbreviation Unit Land competition LC m 2 a Abiotic Resource Depletion Potential ADP Kg Sb eq. Global Warming Potential GWP Kg CO 2 eq. Ozone Depletion Potential ODP Kg CFC-11 eq. Human Toxicity Potential HTP Kg 1,4-DB eq. Fresh water Aquatic Eco-toxicity Potential FAETP Kg 1,4-DB eq. Marine aquatic Eco-toxicity Potential MAETP Kg 1,4-DB eq. Terrestrial Eco-toxicity Potential TETP Kg 1,4-DB eq. Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential POCP Kg C 2 H 2 eq. Acidification Potential AP Kg SO 2 eq. Eutrophication Potential EP Kg PO 3-4 eq. Additional impact category and flow indicators Depletion of Soil Organic Matter SOM kg organic C Cumulative Energy Demand CED MJ Water Consumption Water m 3 Aggregation As an additional step aggregation of the contributions to the different environmental categories of the CML method can be done. For this purpose the Shadow Prices methodology (Harmelen et al., 2007) can be applied. It is based on the mitigation costs to reach society accepted policy goals (see Table 3) and was developed for the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment. It must be mentioned that the use of shadow prices is not in conformity with the ISO standards for LCA nor with the ILCD Handbook.

26 26 / 79 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Table 3 Shadow prices per environmental effect category (Harmelen et al., 2007, 1 Harmelen et al, 2012). The shadow price for SOM was calculated for this report. Shadow price Impact category ( /unit) ADP 0 AP 4 EP 9 FAETP 0.03 GWP 0.05 HTP 0.08 MAETP ODP 30 POCP 2 TETP 1.3 LC Additional indicator SOM 0.15 Land competition is an important impact category for product systems that include agricultural or silvicultural production. As the beverage carton recycling avoids the production of primary pulp made from wood harvested in plantations this impact category is important as shown from preliminary calculations of the collection systems. The original shadow price was, assuming a complete loss of ecosystem services, calculated at m -2.a -1 (Ewijk, 2004). The calculation was based on a study by Constanza et al. (1997) and used the value of ecosystem services for the planet Earth excluding the surface of the open ocean. TNO made a first correction based on including only those biomes relevant for land use and left out the coastal waters and excluded the ecosystem service (climate regulation) that are clearly taken into account in other impact categories (Harmelen et al, 2012)). This led to an adjusted shadow price of m -2.a -1. This shadow price is used in the base calculations. 2.7 Limitations of the study This LCA for the collection and recycling of beverage cartons studies the present activities, it excludes the environmental impacts of accidents and indoor/workplace exposure to substances and other agents. It is furthermore based upon a number of assumptions as some data needed for the study were lacking. However, the impact of the most important assumptions has been addressed in sensitivity analyses. We have chosen to use the CML impact assessment method to assess the environmental effect of all the inputs and outputs of the systems studied. Several other methods are also available and these may address other environmental impacts or underlying models. We may thus miss a number of environmental impacts. To reduce this limitation we have applied two other methods in a sensitivity analysis. However, all the models used are based on global models and do not take into account specific local impacts.

27 TNO report TNO 2013 R / Review The study is based on the results of a number of municipalities that have some years of experience with the collection of beverage cartons but also on municipalities that started the collection in this pilot. It is thus likely that the results will change in the future. A future outlook has been included to address future improvements in the collection systems. The LCA was reviewed by an external committee involving: 1. Prof. Dr.-lng. habil. Dr h.c. B Bilitewski, INTECUS GmbH 2. Prof. H. Wenzel, Professor, Institute of Chemical Engineering, Biotechnology and Environmental Technology, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark 3. Dr. M. Gell, WRAP, United Kingdom Prof. Bernd Bilitewski is a highly distinguished expert for waste management at the national and international level. Prof. Henrik Wenzel is an LCA expert specialising in biobased products and waste treatment. Dr. Michael Gell leads the product and packaging area in WRAP and is since 2006 a technical advisor to the Carbon Disclosure Project. The review committee was presented the draft work plan of the Pilot and met the organisers and researchers during a meeting on 29 th May 2013 in Hoofddorp (Netherlands). During this meeting several issues for the LCA were discussed and a review document (see Appendix A) was later provided. Based on the discussion and this first review document the LCA was further improved. A major change was the use of a consequential approach for the markets most influenced by the collection and recycling of beverage cartons. The reactions to this review document are given in Appendix A. A previous draft version of this report 4 was discussed in a second meeting with the review committee in Hoofddorp on the 26 th of November The review committee gave its remarks and recommendations in a document which can be found in Appendix B Recommendations of the Technological Environmental Review Committee 26th November The main improvement of the report was providing a more detailed and transparent presentation of the results. Our response on this review document can be found in Appendix B. 4 BevCartRep201113a.pdf from and sent to the review committee on :17

28 28 / 79 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036

29 TNO report TNO 2013 R / 79 3 Life Cycle Inventory 3.1 Introduction This chapter shortly explains the studied systems. Please refer to appendix D for more details on the studied systems. This chapter starts with a description of the different collection systems and the way they are modelled. Next, an explanation and overview of the collection and recovery rates that are achieved in the pilot and used for the calculations is given. Furthermore, a description of the two studied beverage carton recycling processes is given. Finally, an overview is given of the assumptions made for the assessment. 3.2 Data inventory Collection systems In total seven collection systems for the post-consumer beverage cartons are distinguished (see Table 4). One of these alternative collection systems, where the beverage cartons are collected with the municipal solid waste and send to an MSWI for energy recovery, is the reference system. The other systems have three collection options: separate mono stream collection; collection with a carrier stream; post-separation. For the first option a differentiation is made into kerbside or dropoff systems and with or without a differentiated tariff (diftar) for MSW. For the collection with a carrier stream two carriers exist (plastic packaging waste or waste paper and board). Table 4 Collection options for post-consumer beverage cartons and alternative collection systems. Collection option Separate With carrier Post-separation With MSW Collection system Drop-off no diftar Drop-off diftar Kerbside Plastics, Drop-off & kerbside Paper and board, Drop-off & kerbside Post-separation MSW incineration with energy recovery The use of diftar may lead to an increased response rate for the beverage cartons as this reduces the mass or volume of MSW for the consumer Collection with MSW In the reference situation the beverage cartons are collected with the rest of the municipal waste. Three alternatives are included: 1) kerbside collection with bag or 2) kerbside collection with mini-container and 3) drop-off at collective (underground) containers. We have assumed 100% kerbside collection. The MSW with beverage cartons is collected with municipal waste trucks that either transport the waste directly to a MSWI facility, or bring the waste to a regional cross docking station. At the cross docking stations the waste is transferred to lorries by use of skid-steer loaders to be transported to a MSWI facility.

30 30 / 79 TNO report TNO 2013 R Separate collection, bring systems The consumer collects the post-use beverage cartons at home and brings them to a collection point in the neighbourhood or at the communal waste station. The consumer may clean or rinse the beverage cartons with cold or hot water before bringing the beverage cartons away. The beverage cartons that are not separated by the consumer are assumed to end up in the MSW and therefore further follow the reference route (see Figure 5 and Figure 6). The collection of beverage cartons may lead to the consumer putting other materials, e.g. plastic packaging waste, to the waste beverage cartons. These are the residual materials in Figure 5 to 9. Figure 5 Flow-chart for the system separate collection, drop-off with diftar. Not all waste flows of the recycling are shown. Post consumer BC Collection Recycling BC Pulp 9,5 PE rejects ,9 Alu rejects D&M RES Consumer cleaning WWT ,40 D&M in potential MSW collection MSWI 0,20 D&M in collected WWT = Waste Water Treatment 0,07 Collection rate BC = Beverage Cartons D&M = Dirt and Moisture MSW = Municipal solid waste 22 RES = Residual materials Figure 6 Flow-chart for the system separate collection, drop-off no diftar. Not all waste flows of the recycling are shown. The distinction between the drop-off collection system with diftar and with no diftar is reflected in the collection rate and in the amount of residual materials. For the kerbside collection system, the beverage cartons are collected close to the consumer s home by a waste collection vehicle.

31 TNO report TNO 2013 R / Separate collection, kerbside The consumer collects the post-use beverage cartons at home and brings them to an in-house communal container (high rise building) or places them on the kerbside using a polyethylene bag or reusable crate. The beverage cartons may be cleaned or rinsed by the consumer to prevent odours developing at home or in the building. The beverage cartons that are not separated by the consumer are assumed to end up in the MSW and therefore further follow the reference route (see also Figure 7). Post consumer BC Collection Recycling BC Pulp 34,0 PE rejects ,4 Alu rejects D&M Consumer cleaning WWT RES ,40 D&M in potential MSW collection MSWI 0,28 D&M in collected WWT = Waste Water Treatment 0,24 Collection rate BC = Beverage Cartons D&M = Dirt and Moisture MSW = Municipal Solid Waste Incineration 45 RES = Residual materials Figure 7 Flow-chart for the system separate collection, kerbside. Not all waste flows of the recycling are shown Co-collection paper In the co-collection with waste paper and board so-called non-product contamination of the paper and board may occur when the remains of the beverage cartons contents or rinsing liquids spill into the paper and board fraction. The waste paper and board collection in the Netherlands already shows beverage cartons as a minor, probably less than 1%, contamination (Hoogland, 2012). (See also Figure 8). Figure 8 Flow-chart for the system co-collection with paper carrier. Not all waste flows of the recycling are shown Co-collection plastic packaging In the Netherlands the collection of post-consumer plastic packaging waste is widespread. In a number of participating municipalities the beverage cartons are collected together with this plastic waste. This beverage carton collection is a mix of

32 32 / 79 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 both kerbside collection and drop-off and a mix of the use of bags, mini-containers and containers. It is conceivable that due to the co-collection a limited quality loss of the collected plastic occurs. We have assumed that the drop in quality leads to an amount of plastic of 5% of the mass of the beverage cartons to be replaced by virgin plastics (46% PET, 29% PE and 25% PP based on Jetten et al., 2011). (See also Figure 9). Figure 9 Flow-chart for the system co-collection with plastic carrier. Not all waste flows of the recycling are shown Post-separation Post-separation, also called automatic recovery of beverage cartons from MSW, is a feasible option for the part of the Netherlands in the vicinity of the post-separation facilities of Attero and Omrin. These facilities are situated in the northern part of the Netherlands. The beverage cartons are collected together with the MSW at the kerbside in bins or bags or are collected at (underground) containers in case of drop-off. Figure 10 Post-separation equipment at Attero (Dagblad van het Noorden, 2013).

33 TNO report TNO 2013 R / 79 The beverage cartons are separated in a number of steps from the other fractions of the MSW (see Figure 10). By using ballistic separation, sieve drums, wind sifters, eddy current separation, and near-infrared (NIR) recognition the beverage cartons are separated from the other materials. The post separation of MSW can be seen as a multi-functional process since it does not only produce beverage cartons, but also various types of other recyclable or recoverable waste. To assess the use of energy for these processes, a virtual sub-division is made between the processes involved in the separation of beverage cartons and the other processes which are not involved in the separation of beverage cartons. Beverage cartons not separated are incinerated in a REC (Reststoffen Energy Centrale; a power plant using DRF as a fuel) for energy recovery (see also section 4.5 for more information about the REC). Post consumer BC collection Sorting Recycling BC: Pulp 69 PE rejects ,8 Alu rejects D&M: ,40 D&M in potential WWT = Waste Water Treatment REC 0,59 Efficiency of sorting BC = Beverage Cartons 246 D&M = Dirt and Moisture MSW = Municipal solid waste 163 REC = Reststoffen Energie Centrale WWT 236 Figure 11 Flow-chart for the system post-separation. Not all waste flows of the recycling are shown Overview of collection rates and sorting efficiencies The fraction of available beverage cartons that are actually collected and the efficiency of the applied sorting methodologies together determine the actual fraction of beverage cartons that are brought to the recycling facilities. When taking into account the pulping efficiency the recovery rate can be determined. Table 5 below gives an overview of the collection rates and sorting efficiencies 5 that have been determined in the pilot study. 5 See for definition of these terms Ligthart and Ansems, 2012

34 34 / 79 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Table 5 Collection option Separate 7 Overview of net collection rates, sorting and pulping efficiencies Collection system Collection rate Sorting efficiency Pulping efficiency 6 Recovery rate Drop-off no diftar 0.07 n/a Drop-off diftar 0.25 n/a Kerbside 0.24 n/a With carrier Plastics Postseparation Paper and board Postseparation With MSW MSWI 1 n/a n/a n/a Cleaning by consumer From the study by Wageningen University and Research (Thoden van Velzen et al., 2013a, 2013b) it is known that on average beverage cartons contain 40% product and rinsing residues, further called moisture and dirt, when the consumer disposes of it in the MSW. It is also known that in case the beverage cartons are collected separately or with a carrier stream the beverage cartons are partly emptied or cleaned. This cleaning can be done by squeezing out the left over contents and/or by rinsing the beverage carton with hot or cold water. We have made a number of assumptions on this cleaning by the consumer, which are explained in appendix D. The modelling of the treatment of the rinsing water has been done with the ecoinvent tool for waste water treatment (Doka, 2002). The assumption has been made that the rinsing water is further diluted by other relatively clean waste water streams form the household and resembles a 1:50 yoghurt-water solution. The results of this modelling are shown in Appendix D Extensive inventory. The composition of yoghurt was based on medium fat yoghurt (RIVM, 2013). The exact composition can be found in Appendix D Extensive inventory Beverage carton recycling processes For the recycling of beverage cartons, two different recycling systems are assessed. The first is the conventional recycling process, which will be used in the initial assessment. The second is a State-of-the-art process Conventional recycling In the base cases for the systems studied the recycling of beverage cartons is done in a conventional paper and board factory like that of the Papierfabrik Niederauer Mühle and Delkeskamp Verpackungswerke. For the inventory data for this process the ecoinvent unit process Paper recycling, no deinking at plant/rer is modified. The energy use is 1050 MJ per tonne of pulp the use of water is 6.8 m 3. For details see AD Extensive inventory. 6 This efficiency is related to conventional pulping 7 The average collection rate is This efficiency is a combination of sorting and pulping efficiency

35 TNO report TNO 2013 R / State-of-the-art recycling An alternative for the conventional recycling process may be the so-called REPA recycling (REPA Boltersdorf GmbH). Data on energy and water consumption have been acquired directly from the REPA facility. The water use for this process is 5 tonne water per tonne pulp; the electricity use is 304 MJ per tonne pulp. The emissions to water are assumed to be identical to the emissions included in the ecoinvent unit process referred to in previous section on conventional recycling. 3.3 Assumptions in the inventory In this section we will summarise the assumptions that have been made in the inventory for this study.

36 36 / 79 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Table 6 General and system specific assumptions made in the inventory. Collection Collection system Assumptions General Cleaning by consumer uses 30 l water per kg product residue removed. Of this 30 l water, 50% is hot tap water and 50 % is cold tap water; Moving of beverage cartons (BCs) at site (cross-docking and sorting) by excavation, skid-steer loader 3,33m3per ton of BCs; Baling consumes electricity, low voltage 3,14 kwh/ton; Discharge of cleaning water to waste water treatment plant (WWTP) based on 1:50 solution of yoghurt to WWTP class 2; Transport for waste import from the UK is 240 km by barge and 225 km by lorry; The avoided transport for avoided waste landfill in the UK is 50 km; Water consumption for rinsing of dirt and moisture at cross-docking consumes two times the amount of leaked out dirt and moisture. Separate Drop off Transport to drop off point by passenger car is 1 personkm/t BC; Transport from drop off point to cross docking is 50 km; Transport from cross docking to recycling facility is 250 km. Kerbside Transport to cross docking (by waste collection vehicle) is 25 km; 30% uses bags, use of bag is included; Transport from cross docking to recycling facility is 250 km. Plastic as carrier Kerbside and drop off 80% of BCs is collected kerbside, 20% is collected at drop off points; Transport to drop off point by passenger car is 1 personkm/t BC for drop off collection; Transport to cross docking (by waste collection vehicle) is 25 km for kerbside collection; Transport from drop off point to cross docking is 50 km; Transport from cross docking to sorting facility is 50 km; Transport from sorting facility to recycling facility is 250 km; Quality loss of carrier based on 5% mass of collected beverage cartons Paper & board as carrier Kerbside and drop off 50% of BCs is collected kerbside, 50% is collected at drop off points; Transport to drop off point by passenger car is 1 personkm/t BC for drop off collection; Transport to cross docking (by waste collection vehicle) is 25 km for kerbside collection; Transport from drop off point to cross docking is 50 km; Transport from cross docking to sorting facility is 50 km; Transport from sorting facility to recycling facility is 250 km; Quality loss of carrier based on 10% mass of collected beverage cartons. Postseparation With MSW No cleaning by consumer; Transport to cross docking (by waste collection vehicle) is 25 km; Transport from cross docking to sorting facility is 50 km; The post-separation (sorting) process consumes 26 MJ electricity/t BC; The transport from the sorting facility to the recycling facility is 355 km; Sorting losses are incinerated in a REC (ReststoffEnenergieCentrale). Reference With MSW No cleaning by consumer; Transport to cross docking (by waste collection vehicle) is 35 km; Transport from cross docking to MSWI is 75 km; No loss of dirt and moisture at cross-docking; Avoided energy based on current Dutch (electricity) and European (heat) mix.

37 TNO report TNO 2013 R / 79 4 Marginal processes in the consequential approach The base approach of the LCA will be attributional modelling (situation A in Table 1). For the consequential modelling approach, effects on markets need to be taken into account. To decide upon which consequences are relevant for consideration, a quantitative understanding of the affected markets is therefore required (European Commission et al. 2012). In the following sections these affected markets will be discussed. 4.1 Incineration of MSW Due to the increased collection of beverage cartons for recycling, the mount of beverage cartons send to the MSWI will reduce. Thereby the amount of burnable waste available to the Dutch MSWIs will decrease and this will have consequences on the economics of waste treatment at an international scale. Municipal household waste incineration has been declining the last years in the Netherlands (Afvalmonitor, 2013). However, the total amount of waste incinerated has slowly risen to over 7000 kton in 2011 (see Figure 1). Since 2009 household waste (HHW) is not landfilled anymore in the Netherlands. Figure 12 Amounts of waste treated in the Netherland for the years (based on Afvalmonitor, 2013). Household waste incinerated stands for incineration of HHW in an MSWI with energy recovery. According to UK data 692 kton of mainly Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) and some Solid Recovered Fuel SRF were exported to the Netherlands in 2012 (Tolvik Consulting, 2011). This import of waste to the Netherlands is related to overcapacity for MSWIs of 15%, to a rising landfill tax and to the slow development of new thermal treatment capacity in the UK (Tolvik Consulting, 2011). These exported

38 38 / 79 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 secondary fuels would otherwise have been landfilled in the UK. The marginal process for the beverage cartons not send is thus landfill in the UK. The issue arises what the composition of the imported RDF is as this will influence the characteristics of the incineration profile. A report by AMEC Environment & Infrastructure UK (2013) indicated that RDF receiving plants in mainland Europe had no preference for a high quality input. They would prefer a purely residual waste stream with relatively high moisture content and a calorific value of around 10 MJ/kg. This resembles MSW for incineration in the ecoinvent database where MSW has a lower heating value MJ/kg (Doka, 2007). We assume, lacking actual composition data for the RDF, that the incineration of MSW (Doka, 2007) is resembling that of the imported RDF. 4.2 Energy production of Dutch municipal solid waste incinerators In the Netherlands, all MSWI plants deliver heat to nearby industry or district heating systems, or electricity to the national power grid (in some cases both). Therefore, electricity and heat can be seen as by-products of the incineration of beverage cartons. The efficiency of electricity and heat production varies among the different facilities. To determine how much electricity and/or heat are produced, the total production of electricity and heat by all Dutch MSWI facilities is determined. Also, the total lower heating value of all waste incinerated is determined. Based on the numbers in Otten and Bergsma (2010) and Agentschap NL (2012) the aggregated efficiencies are calculated. For each MJ of waste incinerated in Dutch MSWI plants, MJ electricity and MJ heat are delivered. Out of the total heat production, MJ heat is delivered to district heating, MJ heat to industry and MJ heat to a combined heat and power (CHP) plant. 4.3 Recycled beverage cartons pulp In the attributional approach the recycling of materials is often given a bonus in the form of the avoided primary production. This could be seen as a consequential approach already. From discussion with Delkeskamp (2013) it appeared that the packaging board they and competitors produce is in practice only produced from waste paper and board. The quality that the beverage cartons deliver is however crucial as these cartons supply long and strong fibres. From an LCA perspective this recycling is closed loop recycling and no avoided product should be chosen (see e.g. Ligthart and Ansems, 2012). Given the fact that the fibres from the beverage cartons provide quality to the pulp an alternative approach was used. The approach chosen here is considering the loss of quality of the fibres in the recycling cascade. The fibres from the primary pulp are used in the first product with a quality of 1. Recycling of this primary fibre leads to a certain quality loss (Qloss). One can thus say that the first product has used an amount of primary fibre of Qloss. The product made from the recycled primary fibres thus uses an amount of primary fibre of 1-Qloss. As we set the boundary just after the production of the secondary pulp and we cannot say what the quality of the pulp will be after the next recycling cycle we set the bonus given to the secondary pulp made form primary beverage carton fibres at 1-Qloss of primary fibres. In the pulping process the loss of fibres from the pulping is taken into account. It appears that the quality of paper made from the beverage cartons collected in the pilot and recycled at REPA is high

39 TNO report TNO 2013 R / 79 (see Table 7); the current quality loss is 8%. For an industrial size plant a loss of 5% is expected. Table 7 Top three parameters describing the quality of Kraft paper and paper made from the collected and recycled beverage cartons. The overall quality is found by averaging the expected relative values for the paper from the beverage carton (Keijsers, 2013). Parameter Unit Kraft Average beverage carton Relative value Expected value Tensile km 4,01 2,93 73% 85% strength Short span Nm/g 21,38 16,9 79% 90% compression index E-modulus Gpa 2,07 2,55 123% 110% Quality - 92% 95% The pulp that is avoided is primary sulphate pulp, which is also used in the packaging board industry to add strength and other qualities to the product. The question arises what exactly the marginal pulp is. In Europe the last five years the paper and board production and consumption, and so demand for wood, has been declining (Forest Industries, 2013). However, globally the area of Eucalyptus species plantations is growing especially in Asia and South America (FAO, 2002). The wood of these fast growing species is used by the pulp industry. From a global perspective pulp made from Eucalyptus is thus a likely marginal process. In the ecoinvent database this type of pulp 9 is available. One thing that is lacking is a characterisation factor for Land Use for Occupation, forest, intensive, short-cycle. Based on the method described by Milà i Canals, Romanyà and Cowell (2007) and the data on SOM loss from Wenzel et al (2013) for new plantations on savannah a characterisation factor of 15 kg C.yr.m -2.yr -1 was calculated. 4.4 Recycling and recovery of non-fibre components The repulping of beverage cartons at paper and board mills also produces non-fibre components: aluminium and polymers. According to ACE, The Alliance for Beverage Cartons and the Environment, for some mills plants next to the mills transform the polymers into gas for energy and collect aluminium powder. In others currently under development, the polymers are recycled in plastic granulates for new plastic applications. In other still, the combined polymer-aluminium fraction is recycled as composite material or is used as feedstock for energy or raw materials for other industries (ACE, 2013; FostPlus, 2011). The cement clinker industries use the polymers as a fuel that substitutes primary fuels and the aluminium as a substitute for aluminium containing raw materials (Bergsma et al., 2010). The aluminium also acts as a secondary fuel, with a lower heating value of 31 MJ.kg -1, as it incinerates in the kiln. 9 Sulphate pulp, from eucalyptus ssp. (SFM), unbleached, at pulpmill/th U

40 40 / 79 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 In this study the aluminium and polyethylene are sent as a secondary fuel/raw material to a clinker kiln. This is in line with the Dutch situation where beverage cartons are send to Germany for recycling (Bergsma et al., 2010; Bruns, 2013). The primary fuel, and the incineration emissions of it, that are avoided is hard coal (see Table 8). Table 8 Avoided fossil fuels and energy use for clinker kiln per MJ secondary fuel (Vos et al., 2007). Fuels/Energy Amount Unit Hard coal mix, at regional storage/ucte U 3,46E-02 kg Electricity, medium voltage, production UCTE, at grid a 1,48 Wh a avoided milling of fuels, assuming secondary fuels from beverage carton are already shredded. 4.5 Energy recovery refuse derived fuel from post separation The two selected post-separation installations, Omrin and Attero, in the Netherlands produce RDF from the fractions that cannot be recycled. This RDF is incinerated in so-called RECs, ReststoffenEnergieCentrale, which have a higher efficiency than the Dutch MSWIs. The beverage cartons that are not separated from the MSW due to a sorting efficiency lower than 100% are incinerated in these RECs. The beverage cartons that are recovered are compensated by import of RDF from the UK which is then incinerated in the RECs. The RECs have an average electrical efficiency of 20% and the thermal (steam sold to external parties) efficiency is 55% (see Table 9). The electrical efficiency is comparable with the average Dutch MSWI, the heat efficiency is however much higher (55% compared to 8%). The consequence is that the environmental performance of the REC is better than that of the average Dutch MSWI. The RECs use natural gas as a fuel additional to the RDF. The efficiencies of the installation of Omrin were based on the license application (Afvalsturing Friesland N.V., 2010.) For the Attero installation use was made of the R1 value of that installation (Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment, 2013a), assuming the same input of natural gas as that of Omrin. The efficiencies were averaged based on the capacity of the two installations Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment (2013b). Table 9 Inputs and outputs of the two Dutch RECs. Input (GJ.ton -1 ) Output (GJ.ton -1 ) Efficiency RDF 12,28 Electricity 2,60 Electricity 20.0% Natural gas 0.72 Steam 7,12 Steam 54,8% Total 13,00 Total 9,72 Total 74,8% The production of electricity and heat by the RECs avoids the production of high voltage electricity at the Dutch grid and the incineration of natural gas for industrial steam production.

41 TNO report TNO 2013 R / 79 5 Life Cycle Impact Assessment 5.1 Introduction In this chapter we will present the results of the life cycle impact assessment using the CML method (Guinee et al., 2002) and shadow prices (Harmelen van et al., 2007) and discuss these results. At the end of this chapter the several collection systems will be compared with each other. An overview of the collection systems is given in Table 4 (paragraph of this report). For the presentation of the results a weighted average based on the potential in the participating municipalities of the three systems for separate collection is calculated. For detailed results of the three separate systems, please see appendix F. The results of the impact assessments of the studied collection systems will all be based on the functional unit: The collection, treatment and recycling of 1000 kg post-consumer beverage cartons. In the base case the systems studied the recycling of the beverage cartons is done in a conventional paper and board factory like these of the Papierfabrik Niederauer Mühle and Delkeskamp Verpackungswerke. The inventory data for this recycling process is taken from the ecoinvent database (see section 3.2.4). The results will be presented both for the characterisation step as in the form of shadow costs. The results of the characterisation are shown as the relative contributions to an environmental impact category for each of the process groups that form a system (see e.g. Figure 13). The absolute values of the characterisation can be found in Appendix E Characterised values LCIA. 5.2 Specific activities/processes Consumer cleaning of beverage cartons The removal of left-over products in the beverage cartons by consumer cleaning involves the use of hot and cold tap water and of the treatment of the water that is treated at a waste water treatment plant (WWTP).

42 42 / 79 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Figure 13 The relative contribution to the characterised result per impact category of the processes making up the cleaning by the consumer. The treatment of the rinsing water in a WWTP shows considerable contributions for seven impact categories (see Figure 13). The contribution is especially high (over 50%) for EP, FAETP and MAETP. Nitrate and ammonium emissions from the yoghurt that enter via the effluent of the WWTP the surface water are the cause of the high EP score. For FAETP and MAETP the emissions of selenium (a natural component of dairy product) via the WWTP s effluent to surface water are the main cause of the high score. The toxicity score of selenium could be challenged as this substance is also a trace element needed by many organisms. The use of energy, from natural gas incineration and from electricity use, to heat the tap water shows for all but EP and MAETP, a considerable contribution to the environmental profile. The extraction and transport of fossil fuels and the incineration to produce electricity or heat causes the largest part of the impacts. The use of wood and wood products as a renewable fuel in the production of electricity causes the contribution to LC.

43 TNO report TNO 2013 R / 79 Figure 14 The environmental impact expressed as shadow costs for the processes for 1 ton of yoghurt removed by consumer cleaning. The bars show the contribution per subprocess and of the total of the process. The two impact categories that determine the shadow cost of the cleaning of the beverage cartons by the consumer are EP, mainly due to effluent emissions, and GWP, due to the use of fossil fuels (see Figure 14) Recycling of beverage carton All processes needed in the recycling process of beverage cartons have a considerable contribution to one or more impact categories (see Figure 15). The effluent of the WWTP at the recycling site shows the highest contribution to EP due to emissions to water of amongst others phosphate, phosphorus and organic compounds (indicated by chemical oxygen demand or COD). The use of energy in the form of heat from natural gas plus electricity show important contributions to ADP (use of fossil fuels), ODP (emissions of halon based fire extinguishers), HTP (formation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons or PAHs by incineration natural gas) and POCP (non-methane volatile organic compounds (VOCs), SO 2 ). The use of, further unspecified, inorganic chemicals as additives in the pulping process leads to contributions of over 20% to eight of the eleven impact categories. These contributions are somewhat uncertain due to the unspecified nature of these chemicals. Finally the incineration of the by-products in the clinker kiln leads to emissions of fossil carbon mono- and dioxide (PE incineration) and of nitrogen oxides (incineration of all by-products). Emissions of trace elements in the paper, aluminium and plastics of the beverage carton recycling byproducts were due to lack of data not taken into account. This may lead to some underestimation of especially the toxicity related impact categories.

44 44 / 79 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Figure 15 The relative contribution to the characterised result per impact category of the processes included in the recycling of beverage cartons. The emission of carbon dioxide, especially due to incineration of the PE by-product in the clinker kiln, is dominating the shadow costs of the recycling process (see Figure 16). Figure 16 The environmental impact expressed as shadow costs for the processes for 1 ton of beverage carton recycling. The bars show the contribution per sub-process and of the total of the process.

45 TNO report TNO 2013 R / Recovered materials and fuels The process Recovered materials and fuels covers the benefits of the recycling of the beverage cartons. It includes the avoidance of the production of primary pulp from Eucalyptus ssp grown at plantations by recycling of the cardboard of the beverage cartons. It also includes the recovery of the aluminium and PE from the beverage carton in a clinker kiln. Before explaining Figure 17 it must be noted that the sign of the y-axis is now negative. This means that the environmental impact or burden is negative, in other words an environmental benefit shows. It appears from Figure 17 that especially the avoided sulphate pulp has a large contribution to the environmental profile; its absolute contribution to an impact category is always above 25%. For LC the contribution is even 100%. The energy recovery from PE is the second most contributing process. It avoids the use of hard coal as a fuel in the clinker kiln. For five, ADP, AP, EP, GWP and POCP) of the eleven impact categories its contribution is above 25%. Figure 17 The relative contribution to the characterised result per impact category of the processes making up the recovered materials and fuels. When translating the environmental profile into shadow costs (see Figure 18) the negative environmental impact can clearly be seen. Furthermore it is clear that LC and GWP are the main contributors to the total shadow costs. GWP is especially related to the avoided energy from the incineration of PE, while LC is determined by the avoided sulphate pulp.

46 46 / 79 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Figure 18 The environmental impact expressed as shadow costs for the processes for 1 ton of recovered materials and fuels. The bars show the contribution per sub-process and of the total of the process Import RDF and incineration The avoidance of landfill and the energy recovery from the RDF are the main contributors to the environmental profile (see Figure 19). Except for one impact category, HTP, the import and subsequent energy recovery from British RDF shows a net environmental benefit. Emissions from antimony and dioxins from the incineration flue gasses are the main cause of the high score on HTP. As the energy recovery avoids the extraction, transport and incineration of several fossil fuels impact categories like ADP, AP, ODP show very high benefits for the energy recovery. Also the avoidance of landfill in the UK is showing large benefits for EP, GWP, FAETP, MAETP, TETP and POCP. For EP it are the avoided emissions from nitrate and ammonium that have the main contribution. The avoided release of biogenic and fossil methane from the landfill is responsible for the large contribution to GWP. For FAETP the avoided emissions of vanadium and nickel (which are present in the municipal waste) are the most important, while for MAETP the emission of hydrogen fluoride from the landfill to air is dominating. Finally the avoided emission of mercury from the landfill to air is an important cause for the score on TETP. The emissions to air are from both the direct emissions from the landfill as from the indirect emissions by incineration of the landfill (bio)gas.

47 TNO report TNO 2013 R / 79 Figure 19 The relative contribution to the characterised result per impact category of the processes making up the import and incineration of RDF. The transport by road and by sea do individually not have contributions of over + or - 20%. Figure 20 shows that when translating the environmental profile into shadow costs nearly 80% of the benefits come from GWP (avoided methane emissions). Figure 20 The environmental impact expressed as shadow costs for the processes for 1 ton of RDF import for energy recovery. The bars show the contribution per sub-process and of the total of the process.

48 48 / 79 TNO report TNO 2013 R Scenarios Reference scenario In this study we have taken the collection of beverage cartons together with the other MSW and the subsequent incineration with energy recovery as the reference scenario. Not surprisingly the incineration of the beverage cartons has a considerable contribution to almost all impact categories (see Figure 21). Only for ADP, ODP and LC the contribution is less than 20%. The toxicity related impact categories HTP, FAETP and MAETP show a contribution of the incineration of around ninety per cent. Emissions of selenium to water and 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) to air from the incineration of the beverage cartons are mainly responsible for the high score on HTP. The negative contribution to HTP is caused by the avoided emission of PAH due to the recovered energy. Vanadium and selenium emissions to water (from the incineration of cardboard and PE) are the main cause for the high FAETP score. Selenium and vanadium to water cause the high score on MAETP. The vanadium emissions are related to the incineration of the PE foil, the emissions of Ba are related to the incineration of the cardboard and the PE. The emission of Se is related to the incineration of cardboard. The avoided production of energy (mainly of high voltage electricity and to some extend also of heat) is the reason that the Energy recovery shows such a considerable benefit for all impact categories. Over 80% of the recovered energy comes from the materials in the beverage carton itself. Figure 21 The relative contribution to the characterised result per impact category of the processes for the reference scenario. Energy recovery D&M stands for the energy recovery from the dirt and moisture, Energy recovery BC for that from the beverage carton itself.

49 TNO report TNO 2013 R / 79 The collection of the beverage cartons with the garbage truck leads for four impact categories to a considerable contribution: AP, EP, ODP and POCP. For AP, EP and POCP it are the emissions of the truck itself are causing the impact, while for ODP the impact is related to the exploration of oil fields used for producing the diesel. The avoided use of hard coal as a fuel in electricity producing power plants leads to less use of wood in coal mines and less use of the hard coal extraction sites. This shows in the impact category LC. Figure 22 The environmental impact expressed as shadow costs for the reference system. The bars show the contribution per phase and of the total of the system. The reference scenario has a total shadow cost of This means the benefits of the energy recovery outweigh the impacts of the collection and incineration. With a net shadow cost of - 10 GWP is the most important impact category. The incineration of a renewable and carbon neutral secondary fuel, the cardboard, tips the balance to a benefit Separate collection In this section the results for the weighted average of the three separate collection scenarios (drop-off with diftar, drop-off with no diftar and kerbside) are presented. For the results of the individual scenarios, please see appendix F. The results show both positive and negative net environmental impacts (see also Figure 23). The positive impacts (net environmental burden) are mainly caused by the MSWI of not collected beverage cartons (the reference scenario). Also on some of the net environmental benefits (negative total scores) the MSWI plays an important role (most notably ADP and ODP). The recovered materials and fuels from the recycling of beverage cartons shows large environmental benefits most notably on LC, HTP, TETP and POCP.

50 50 / 79 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Figure 23 The relative contribution to the characterised result per impact category of the processes for the weighted average separate collection system. Figure 24 shows the environmental impacts expressed as shadow costs. The total environmental benefit of this system is -25, which is mainly due to avoided recovered materials ( -18) and the reference scenario ( -8). Figure 24 The environmental impact expressed as shadow costs for the weighted average separate collection system.

51 TNO report TNO 2013 R / Co-collection with plastic as carrier The system of co-collection of the beverage cartons together with plastic shows both positive and negative net impacts (see Figure 25). The MSWI reference scenario has important contributions to both the positive impacts or burdens (notably FAETP and MAETP) and the negative impacts or benefits (e.g. ADP and ODP). The incineration of imported RDF and avoided landfill has a significant contribution to many of the impact categories. An important impact for this system is the quality loss of the carrier stream (plastic), which has to be compensated by the production of new plastics. This especially shows for POCP and HTP. Figure 25 The relative contribution to the characterised result per impact category of the processes for co-collection with plastic as carrier.

52 52 / 79 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Figure 26 The environmental impact expressed as shadow costs for the co-collection with plastic. The bars show the contribution per phase and of the total of the system. The total shadow cost for the system is -26. Of this total score the GWP and LC are the most important benefits ( -11 and -10 respectively). The total shadow cost for the quality loss of the plastic carrier stream is 4.6; mainly caused by GWP Co-collection with paper and cardboard as carrier Due to the moderate collection rate (25%) and the low sorting efficiency of 56% The system of co-collection of beverage cartons with paper and cardboard has a relatively low recovery rate (13 %, see also ). Therefore, the MSWI scenario determines an important part of the results for almost all effect categories (see also Figure 27 and Table 29). Due to the limited recovery, the import of RDF and avoided landfill are relatively less important in this system. Most of the environmental benefits are mainly determined by the recovered materials and the MSWI scenario.

53 TNO report TNO 2013 R / 79 Figure 27 The relative contribution to the characterised result per impact category of the processes for co-collection with paper and cardboard. Figure 28 The environmental impact expressed as shadow costs for the co-collection with paper and board. The bars show the contribution per phase and of the total of the system. The total shadow cost of this system is -19, which is for the largest part determined by GWP and LC ( -12 and -4 respectively). The quality loss of the carrier stream (paper and cardboard) has a moderate effect on the results ( 0.8), mostly on LC ( 0.76).

54 54 / 79 TNO report TNO 2013 R Post-separation The import and subsequent incineration for energy recovery of RDF (Import RDF) shows for a number of impact categories a considerable contribution (20% or over, absolute values) as can be seen from Figure 29. The collection of the beverage cartons only shows a considerable impact for POCP due to the emissions from the waste collection lorry. The energy use for the post-separation process has an almost negligible contribution. The recovery of beverage cartons and the subsequent recycling avoids the production of primary pulp which shows the largest benefits. The use of the plastic and plastic/aluminium foil as a secondary fuel and raw material (aluminium) in a clinker kiln has a smaller benefit. Figure 29 The relative contribution to the characterised result per impact category of the processes for the system of post-separation. The REC, the power plant, that incinerates the beverage cartons not separated from the waste, delivers steam and electricity to external parties which avoid the current production of the electricity mix on the Dutch grid and of the use of fossil fuels for steam generation. Especially for ADP, GWP ODP, HTP and POCP this shows. For ODP HTP and POCP the avoided production of heat is the most important contributor, while for FAETP and MAETP the avoided production of electricity is more important. The incineration of the beverage cartons does however also show impacts for HTP, FAETP and MAETP. The net shadow costs of the treatment of 1 ton post-consumer beverage cartons collected together with MSW are -86. GWP has the most important net contribution to the results of -43, mostly caused by the import of RDF ( -25), recovered energy in the REC ( -22) and recovered materials/fuels from recycling ( -20). A large positive contribution to GWP is from the disposal of rejects from the recycling process ( 14). Due to the avoided use of eucalyptus ssp plantations LC shows a contribution of -22% (see Figure 30). GWP is the most important impact category with a contribution of 50%.

55 TNO report TNO 2013 R / 79 Figure 30 The environmental impact expressed as shadow costs for the post-separation system. The bars show the contribution per phase and of the total of the system. 5.4 Comparison After having shown the results of each alternative system we will compare the alternatives with each other. First of all the systems are compared based on the characterised data of the CML impact categories. The general image that appears form Figure 31 and Table 31 in the appendix is that for most impact categories the impacts are negative, meaning the systems have a net environmental benefit. Exceptions to that general image are HTP, FAETP and MAETP. Another general image that appears is that the post-separation system has the best performance as it shows the largest benefits and does not show an impact (a + sign) for any of the impact categories. On some of the indicators (AP, EP, HTP, FAETP and MAETP), the systems that tend to have the next best performance are the separate kerbside collection and the drop-off system in case of diftar. The differences of the other systems and the reference system are not so outspoken.

56 MSWI (reference) Separate kerbside Drop-off diftar Drop-off no-diftar Co-collect plastic Co-collect paper & board Post-separation 56 / 79 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Figure 31 The relative contribution to the characterised result per impact category of the collection systems. The absolute largest score per impact category has been set to 100%. The environmental burden expressed as shadow costs makes it easy to compare the different systems with each other. The results of this type of comparison are shown in Table 10 and Figure 32. Table 10 Overview of the total shadow costs of the systems. Shadow cost One can distinguish a number of groups from the results. As a criterion a difference of 10 has been taken. Firstly, the drop-off with no diftar and the co-collection with paper and board have a score close to that of the reference. This has to do with the very low response rates. Secondly, the two co-collection alternatives seem to form a group together with the separate kerbside and drop-off diftar. This group has a performance better than the first group, although it has co-collection with paper and board as a shared member. The third and last group, with a single member, is the post-separation that shows the lowest shadow costs. This is due to the high efficiency in separating the beverage cartons from the other municipal waste. With exception of the reference system where GWP has the largest contribution to the environmental benefit, the shadow cost of the systems is dominated by LC. Drop-off with no-diftar additionally shows the importance of GWP due to the high percentage of beverage cartons send to the MSWI.

57 TNO report TNO 2013 R / 79 Figure 32 The environmental impacts of the studied systems expressed as shadow costs. At the left side of the stacked bar the net shadow costs are shown. The recovery rate (see Table 5), collection rate times sorting efficiencies times pulping efficiency, appears to be the parameter explaining the environmental performance of a system. The correlation between recovery rate and environmental performance is very high as is seen in Figure 33. Figure 33 The relation between the recovery rate of the systems and the shadow costs. R square is based upon all the blue data points. Separate, average gives the weighted score of the three separate collection systems.

58 58 / 79 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036

59 TNO report TNO 2013 R / 79 6 Sensitivity Analysis 6.1 Introduction With respect to the applied data, methodologies, allocation rules, assumed quality of the recycled fractions etc. some questions can arise. Also the first results of the environmental impact calculations can cause several discussions. Based upon the results shown in the previous chapter and on an evaluation of the impact of main assumptions a set of sensitivity analyses is proposed in the next section. 6.2 Issues for sensitivity analyses In this section the previous mentioned issues are selected for a sensitivity analysis. The systems separate collection (drop-off, diftar) and co-collection with paper show the highest relative impact of the consumer cleaning for GWP. GWP was chosen as this is an impact for which the use of electricity and a gas boiler shows the best. From Figure 34 it can be seen how consumer cleaning contributes. The contributions stay below 10% and given the further uncertainty in the LCA results not significant for the final result. A sensitivity analysis for consumer cleaning is thus not considered. Figure 34 The relative contribution to GWP of the several phases within the system of separate collection (drop-off, diftar) at the top and co-collection with paper at the bottom. The use of an impact assessment method differing from the base method (CML) will of course lead to differences as other impact categories or different characterisation factors are used in the method. The question here is Will the use of another impact assessment method lead to a difference in ranking of the alternatives?. As we want to express the environmental impact into a single indicator the alternatives must also have this possibility. The midpoint method of ReCiPe also has shadow costs available and so the results can be expressed in a single indicator. Another alternative would be to use the endpoint method of ReCiPe. The ReCiPe method was created by RIVM, CML, PRé Consultants, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen and CE Delft. The default ReCiPe endpoint method is the Hierarchist version, with European normalisation and average weighting set (average of the full panel): ReCiPe Endpoint (H), Europe ReCiPe H/A

60 60 / 79 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Another issue for the sensitivity analyses is that the shadow price of land competition (LC) can even be more subject of discussion than the impact category itself. The shadow price of LC is based on the economical values that ecosystem services by terrestrial biomes have. By occupying land for a certain period it is assumed that these values are lost and it is certainly the question whether this is true. Another approach would be to relate the impacts of land use on the loss of ecosystem services. It is known that SOM plays an important role in the ecological functioning of soils. The impact on the SOM of land use could therefore be another impact indicator. In the set of impact categories recommended by the ILCD SOM is the preferred indicator for the impacts of land use. Based on the fact that compost is used by farmers to replenish SOM lost due to the cultivation of crops it is possible to generate a proxy for the shadow price of SOM. Landbouwkeurcompost, a certified relatively cheap type of compost costs 0.75 /ton. Of the input of total C only 51% is stable. Per ton of compost applied 48.5 kg C is stable. This gives us the preliminary shadow price of /kg C. Another issue is that in the base case we excluded the long term emissions. This means that any emission that belongs to one of the sub-compartments: "Air\low. pop., long-term" "Water\groundwater, long-term" "Water\river, long-term" is excluded from the impact assessment. These emissions are for instance related to landfills where especially heavy metals are leached out to a varying degree over time. Long-term emissions usually represent an important burden from landfills (Doka G and Hischier R, 2005). Because it is expected that this will affect the results considerably, at least in the height of the shadow costs, we have chosen for this issue to be included in the sensitivity analyses. From the results of the study on the collection rates by the WUR (Thoden van Velzen, 2013a) it appears that for the systems where the beverage cartons are collected separately or with a carrier the response rates are likely to increase in the future. The learning curve for the consumer and municipalities is not yet at its peak. Although a very valid extrapolation cannot be made it would be fair to base the comparison on foreseeable collection rates. Therefore, in appendix J a future outlook is given based on assumptions about how the collection rates may develop in the future. Loss of carrier material Two of the alternatives have a collection system where the beverage cartons are collected together with a carrier stream. They are co-collection with packaging plastic and co-collection with waste paper and board. We assume that due to cocollection of beverage cartons the quality of the carrier stream would diminish by contamination with left overs of the beverage cartons contents and/or rinsing liquid. As no data on this loss were available but it was a topic of discussion we took assumptions for this quality loss. For paper and board it was assumed that the loss of waste paper would lead to 10% of the mass of the beverage cartons. This loss has to be replenished by virgin materials. For plastic as the carrier stream 5% of the mass of the beverage cartons would be lost due to contamination. This loss of plastic also needs to be compensated by the production of virgin material. The loss

61 TNO report TNO 2013 R / 79 is zero when no beverage cartons are collected; for values in between the quality loss is related to the collection rate of the beverage cartons. It is assumed that the fraction of the quality that is lost is directly translated into the loss of material for recycling. So, in case of paper and 40% collection rate the amount of paper lost for recycling is per ton of collected beverage cartons 0.4*0.10=0.04 ton. Figure 35 Relation between fluid tight paper (beverage cartons) in WPB and pollution of WPB. Based on Hoogland, Results For the co-collection of paper and board an indication exists that the impact of beverage cartons in waste paper and board (WPB) is at very limited at the most. A report studying the contamination of WPB with among other fluid tight paper (beverage cartons mainly) and the contaminated fraction shows a very low correlation between the percentage of fluid tight paper and the unwanted fractions as can be seen from Figure 35. The fraction Unwanted-polluted in Figure 35 includes paper that has been in contact with dirt, paint and food (Hoogland, 2012). The food is most likely coming from beverage cartons. The fraction Other pollution includes paper contaminated by amongst other hazardous waste. In the base case, a conventional recycling process is modeled. As a state of the art recycling process REPA recycling may be applied (see also section 3.2.4). REPA recycling has different inputs of energy and materials and yields lower amounts of recovered fibres. Therefore, REPA recycling may give different results. In the sections below, the results for the most important sensitivity analyses proposed in the above are presented. The results of the other sensitivity analyses are given in appendix G.

62 62 / 79 TNO report TNO 2013 R Land competition Instead of using the area use per year as the indicator for the impact of land use the indicator recommended by the ILCD was used: Land use based on SOM loss. In Figure 36 it is indicated as LU (right hand side of graph). Figure 36 The relative contribution to the characterised result per impact category, LU at the right, of the collection systems. The absolute largest score per impact category has been set to 100%. It is clear that also for LU the system using post-separation has the best credentials. This remains when translating the environmental profile into shadow cost (see Figure 37). Land use is the most contributing impact category followed by GWP.

63 TNO report TNO 2013 R / 79 Figure 37 The environmental impact expressed as shadow costs for the alternative systems. The bars show the contribution per phase and of the total of the system. The ranking of the systems is not affected compared to the base case as can be concluded from Figure 38. The shadow costs of all systems except the reference system become more negative. Figure 38 Comparison of each system for the base case shadow costs (CML) and when replacing Land Competition by Land Use.

64 64 / 79 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 The environmental relevance of a land use indicator (LU) based on impacts on a highly relevant parameter of the soil system, SOM, is much higher than an indicator that gives the same weight to using 1 square meter of land (LC) regardless of the actual use and impacts on the (soil) ecosystem. We will therefore base our final comparative conclusions on the impact assessment which uses Land Use instead of Land Competition Impact assessment method In the base case we have used the CML impact assessment method. In this sensitivity analysis we apply ReCiPe (Goedkoop et al., 2009) combined with specific shadow prices (Harmelen van et al., 2007, 2012 and CE, 2010) for this method. In the graph (Figure 39) the relative scores for each system are shown per impact category of the method. The image that appears is that for most impact categories the systems show an environmental benefit. The exceptions are human toxicity (Htox), freshwater and marine ecotoxicity (Fecotox and Mecotox). This also showed for the CML method (see Figure 31). The method for calculating the characterisation factors for these impact categories is highly comparable. Again the post-separation system shows the best performance as it shows often the most negative score; an environmental benefit. Figure 39 The relative contribution to the characterised result per impact category of the collection systems. The absolute largest score per impact category has been set to 100%. For explanation of the abbreviations of the impact categories see List of abbreviations. The score of each impact category has been translated with the specific shadow price to be able to aggregate the results of each impact category into a single shadow cost. Figure 40 and shows that especially particulate matter formation (PM), determines the total shadow cost of each system, except for the reference system where climate change (CC) is dominant.

65 TNO report TNO 2013 R / 79 Figure 40 The environmental impact expressed as ReCiPe shadow costs for the alternative systems. The bars show the contribution per phase and of the total of the system. Although the shadow costs for ReCiPe are in every case higher than for the base case the ranking of the systems only changes slightly (see Figure 41). Co-collection with paper and board scores relatively better when using the ReCiPe endpoint method, while the co-collection system with plastic has a relatively lower environmental benefit. The post-separation system has in all three cases the largest environmental benefit.

66 66 / 79 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Figure 41 Table 11 Comparison of each system for the base case shadow costs (CML), for the use of ReCiPe midpoints shadow costs and for the ReCiPe endpoints. Comparison and ranking, the green end of the colour scale has the best performance, of each system for the base case shadow costs (CML), for the use of ReCiPe midpoints shadow costs and for the ReCiPe endpoints. System Base case ReCiPe ReCiPe end Post-separation Drop-off diftar Co-collect plastic Separate kerbside Co-collect paper & board Drop-off no-diftar MSWI (reference) Loss of carrier material For the systems where the beverage cartons are collected together with a carrier stream (co-collection with paper and co-collection with plastic), a part of the carrier stream may be lost in the sorting process. To assess the sensitivity to this loss of carrier material, two extra scenarios are developed: one with low loss, where the assumption is that 1% of the carrier material is lost due to the sorting process and a scenario with high loss, where 5% of the carrier material is lost due to the sorting process. The lost material is assumed to be incinerated in a MSWI facility. From the comparison of the characterised environmental profile (Figure 42) can be seen that especially for plastic as carrier the high loss scenario shows a marked increase of the characterised scores for HTP, FAETP, MAETP, TETP and POCP. For the co collection with paper system the impact is less outspoken.

67 TNO report TNO 2013 R / 79 Figure 42 Sensitivity for quality loss ( high and low ) of carrier. The relative contribution to the characterised result per impact category of the collection systems. The absolute largest score per impact category has been set to 100%. When interpreting the results of the environmental impact expressed as shadow costs (see Figure 43 and Figure 44) the sensitivity of the co-collection with plastic as carrier is relatively high. This is due to the production of new plastic material that is needed to replace the lost secondary material. For the high loss situation this loss of carrier material is of such magnitude that it almost completely compensates the environmental benefits of the beverage carton recycling, reducing the environmental benefit to -1. This means this system has a lower environmental benefit than the reference system. For paper and board as carrier the effect is the other way around. The benefits of energy recovery from incineration of the paper are slightly higher than those of recycling paper. Therefore, the scenario with high loss of the paper and board carrier stream has a slightly larger environmental benefit than the base case situation.

68 68 / 79 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Figure 43 The environmental impact expressed as shadow costs for the alternative systems. The bars show the contribution per phase and of the total of the system. The systems in the blue frames are affected by the quality loss scenarios; high indicates the high loss and low the low loss scenario. The ranking of the systems changes in case of the scenario of high quality loss for co-collection with plastic as carrier (see Table 12). The loss of the carrier thus shows to be an important parameter for the environmental performance of the system with plastic as a carrier. This loss is an assumption as results on this issue are not available from the pilot.

69 MSWI (reference) Separate kerbside Drop-off diftar Drop-off nodiftar Co-coll plastic Co-coll paper Post-separation TNO report TNO 2013 R / 79 Figure 44 Table 12 Comparison of each system for the base case shadow costs (CML) and for the scenarios on quality and quantity loss of the carrier (Low Loss, High Loss). Comparison and ranking, the green end of the colour scale has the best performance, of each system for the base case shadow costs (CML) and for the scenarios that address the quality loss of the carrier (High Quality Loss, Low Quality Loss). Base case High QLoss Low QLoss

70 70 / 79 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036

71 TNO report TNO 2013 R / 79 7 Evaluation and Conclusions 7.1 Evaluation Our study was originally proposed to be based on an attributional approach, no consequences of shift in waste streams were considered. The discussion that took place with the review committee at the beginning of the project led to applying the consequential LCA approach for those parts of the collection systems where we expect a marked potential influence on the markets outside the systems. The consequential approach has been applied to: the reduction of beverage cartons in the MSW that goes to the MSWI the reduction of beverage cartons in the by-products of the post-separation plant that normally are used for energy recovery the energy recovery of the MSWI and at the post-separation power plant the energy and material recovery from the recycling of by-products in the clinker kiln. the pulp produced from the recycled beverage cartons The consequential approach proved to be of significance for the results of the study. The import of RDF from the UK due to the reduction in burnable waste, the beverage cartons, showed to be beneficial as landfill emissions from MSW in the UK are reduced. In many LCA studies on paper and board recycling sulphate pulp from European softwood is often the avoided or marginal product; we have selected sulphate pulp made from Eucalyptus ssp as the marginal product. As this is a fast growing species this especially affects the land use related impacts. An issue that proved to be difficult to model is the cross contamination of other recyclables when co-collecting the beverage cartons with waste plastic packaging or waste paper and board. No reliable data could be collected in this study, nor in that of the WUR (Thoden van Velzen, 2013a). A sensitivity analysis has been used to explore the impact of this cross contamination. The impact category Land Competition of the CML impact assessment method has been topic of debate. In a sensitivity analysis we replaced this impact category by the one recommended by the ILCD for the midpoint of land use impacts. As we find this impact category based on the loss of SOM more environmentally relevant we will base our conclusions upon this land use impact category. The total recovery rate of the collection systems, that is the collection rate times sorting efficiencies times pulping efficiency, appears to be the parameter explaining the environmental performance of a system. The correlation between recovery rate and environmental performance, using Land Use instead of Land Competition, is very high as can be seen in Figure 45.

72 72 / 79 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Figure 45 The relation between the recovery rate of the systems and the shadow costs. R square and the regression line are based upon including the data points of the three sub-systems (not shown here) of the separate collections (for details see section 5.4). It is likely that the collection rates in the municipalities that introduced beverage carton recycling with this pilot will increase in the future. It is also likely that sorting efficiencies will increase. This has the implication that the environmental performance of the collection systems will also increase given the strong correlation between the total recovery rate and the environmental performance. A quantitative assessment of this future outlook is given in Appendix J Future Outlook. 7.2 Conclusions Conclusions Based upon the results and the sensitivity analyses we can draw a number of conclusions for the LCA: All considered collection systems show an environmental benefit compared to the MSWI reference. The overall recovery rate is strongly determining the environmental benefit of a system; the higher the collection response and the sorting efficiency, the higher the environmental benefit. The post-separation of beverage cartons out of municipal waste has the largest environmental benefit. This because of the 100% collection rate and relatively high sorting efficiency which results in almost 60% of the incoming fibres to go to recycling. The incineration of beverage cartons in a MSWI shows an environmental benefit but has the lowest environmental benefits of all alternatives. The avoidance of the production of primary pulp out of Eucalyptus wood by the recycling of beverage cartons has a highly relevant contribution to the environmental benefit.

73 TNO report TNO 2013 R / 79 In addition to the recycling of paper fibres the treatment of the by-products polyethylene and aluminium in a clinker kiln gives an important environmental advantage. It substitutes the application of hard coal and for that reason a real environmental benefit exists. The RDF imported to compensate the loss of the burnable beverage cartons from the MSWI shows to have a considerable contribution for all collection systems. A future increase of the collection response and of the sorting efficiency will improve the environmental performance of the considered systems. Probably for the system co-collection with paper & cardboard an environmental benefit is expected in case the beverage cartons and paper & cardboard are processed together as one fraction. From the sensitivity analyses it is clear that: Especially in the case of co-collection with plastic packaging waste, taking other assumptions of the degree of cross contamination and its effect on the plastic sorting and recycling, shows real changes in the results. The ranking of systems shows to be not sensitive to changes in the influence of the long term emissions and the application of another pulping process (REPA process). The application of other impact assessment methods (ReCiPe midpoint and endpoint) shows that the ranking of the systems is only slightly affected. Postseparation has the best performing environmental profile each time and MSWI (reference) has the worst performing. The other systems may show other grouping in the ranking. The application of a land use indicator, soil organic matter content instead of land competition, is recommended and has no influence on the conclusions regarding the sequence of the systems from the environmental benefit point of view. Other conclusions are: Except for post-separation the differences between the systems are not so large. The observed sequence is co-collection with plastic, separate collection and co-collection with paper & cardboard regarding decreasing environmental benefits. The aggregated environmental benefit (calculated with the help of the shadow prices method) is dominated by land competition or land use; also global warming, acidification and eutrophication play a relevant role.

74 74 / 79 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036

75 TNO report TNO 2013 R / 79 8 References ACE (2013) Recycling & Products Accessed 09 October 2013 Afvalmonitor (2013) Afvalverwerking in Nederland amenstelling%20van%20huishoudelijk%20restafval Accessed 30 May 2013 Afvalsturing Friesland N.V. (2010) Aanvulling Wm-Vergunningaanvraag - Deel B. Reststoffen Energie Centrale Harlingen 6 Mei /files/03%20deel%20c%20-%20aanvulling%20wmvergunningaanvraag%20rec%20harlingen%20def.pdf. Accessed 5 november 2013 Agentschap NL (2012) Afvalverwerking in Nederland : gegevens 2011 / Werkgroep Afvalregistratie. Utrecht :- (Agentschap NL ; 1AFVA1202) : (Vereniging Afvalbedrijven ; VA11001IR.R) ISBN AMEC Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited (2013) Research into SRF and RDF Exports to Other EU Countries. Final Technical Report. Doc Reg No /D040/rr001i4. Accessed 14 October 2013 Bergsma GC, Dönszelmann CEP, Sevenster MN, Rietschoten C van (2010) Inzameling van drankenkartons. Milieu- en kostenanalyse van recyclingopties. (in Dutch) Eindrapport Delft, oktober 2010 Bruns E (2013) Personal communication. Delkeskamp Verpackungswerke GmbH, Nortrup (DE), 30 october 2013 CE (2010) Guidebook Shadow prices weighting and valuation of emissions and environmental impacts (in Dutch: Handboek schaduwprijzen waardering en weging van emissies en milieueffecten). CE, Delft,the Netherlands, CE a Costanza R, d Arge R, De Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, et al. (1997), The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 337, p Dagblad van het Noorden (2013) Attero daagt gemeenten vanwege afvalscheiding DVHN 24 October 2013, 17:05. Accessed 8 november 2013 Doka G (2002) Calculation Tool for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant WWTP For Ecoinvent Doka Life Cycle Assessments, Zurich Doka G (2007) Life cycle inventories of waste treatment services. Dübendorf, CH Doka G and Hischier R (2005) Waste Treatment and Assessment of Long-Term Emissions. Int J LCA 10 (1) (2005) OnlinePublication: December 6th, DOI: Drechsel P and Gyiele LA (1999) The economic assessment of soil nutrient depletion. Analytical issues for framework development. International Board for Soil Research and Management European Commission - Joint Research Centre - Institute for Environment and Sustainability (2010a) International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook - General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Provisions and Action

76 76 / 79 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Steps. First edition March EUR EN. Luxembourg. Publications Office of the European Union; European Commission - Joint Research Centre - Institute for Environment and Sustainability (2010b) International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook - Framework and Requirements for Life Cycle Impact Assessment Models and Indicators. First edition March EUR EN. Luxembourg. Publications Office of the European Union; 2010 European Commission-Joint Research Centre - Institute for Environment and Sustainability: International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook- Recommendations for Life Cycle Impact Assessment in the European context. First edition November EUR EN. Luxemburg. Publications Office of the European Union; 2011 Ewijk, H.A.L. van (red.) (2004). Afstemming normalisatie/weging en milieudata. In Eco-Quantum, GreenCalc+ en DuboCalc. Report IVAM in Dutch. FAO (2002) Global data on forest plantations resources. In: Forest Genetic Resources Bulletin 29. tp:// Accessed November 28, 2013 Forest Industries (2013) Pulp and paper industry statistics. ms.aspx Accessed 30 May 2013 FostPlus (2011) De voorwerpen van morgen, die sorteer je vandaag. Brochure in Dutch. Accessed 09 October 2013 Geisler, G, Hellweg, S, Hungerbühler, K (2005) Uncertainty analysis in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA): Case study on plant-protection products and implications for decision making. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 10 (3), pp Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, Schryver AD, Struijs J, Zelm R Van, (2009). ReCiPe 2008: Report I Characterisation. PRé Consultants, CML (University of Leiden), Radboud University Nijmegen and RIVM, Amersfoort (The Netherlands) (2009) Guinée, JB et al. (2002) Life Cycle Assessment, an operational guide to the ISO standards, Final report, CML, Leiden 2001 Harmelen Toon van, Korenromp René, Deutekom Ceiloi van, Ligthart Tom, Leeuwen Saskia van and Gijlswijk René van, (2007) The price of toxicity. Methodology for the assessment of shadow prices for human toxicity, ecotoxicity and abiotic depletion. In: Quantified Eco-Efficiency. An Introduction with Applications. Series: Eco-Efficiency in Industry and Science, Vol 22. Huppes, Gjalt; Ishikawa, Masanobu (Eds.) Harmelen T van, Horssen A van, Jongeneel S, Ligthart T (2012) Shadow prices of biomass relevant impacts. How to value water scarcity, eco-toxicity and land use in life cycle impact assessments? TNO report Hoogland Y (2012) Productvreemde vervuiling in huishoudelijk papier. Rapportage 2012, gegevens (In Dutch) Omrin draft report , February %20in%20huishoudelijk%20oud%20papier% pdf Accessed 02 July 2013 Huijbregts, M.A.J. (1998) Application of uncertainty and variability in LCA. Part I: A general framework for the analysis of uncertainty and variability in life cycle

77 TNO report TNO 2013 R / 79 assessment. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 3 (5), pp Jetten L, Merkx B, Krebbekx B and Duivenvoorde G (2011) Onderzoek kunststof afdankstromen in Nederland. Rapportage (In Dutch) Keijsers E (2013) Kwaliteitswaarde recycled drankenkarton vr :15 Ligthart TN and Ansems AMM (2012). Modelling of Recycling in LCA, Post- Consumer Waste Recycling and Optimal Production, Prof. Enri Damanhuri (Ed.), ISBN: , InTech, DOI: / Available from: Milà i Canals L, Romanyà J, Cowell SJ (2007). Method for assessing impacts on life support functions (LSF) related to the use of fertile land in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). J Clean Prod Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment (2012) Hoe kunnen we 2/3 van het huishoudelijk afval recyclen? Advies aan de staatssecretaris van Infrastructuur en Milieu. Mei 2012 Behorend bij brief kenmerk IenM/BSK Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment (2013a) LAP, Statusbepaling AVI s op basis van de Kaderrichtlijn. Accessed 24 October Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment (2013b) LAP, Status AVI's (R1-D10) Accessed 24 October RIVM (2013) Nederlands Voedingsstoffenbestand (NEVO-online versie 2011/3.0. RIVM) Thoden van Velzen EU, Brouwer MT, Keijser E, Pretz Th, Feil A, Jansen M (2013a) Pilot beverage cartons Draft version November 2013 Thoden van Velzen EU, Brouwer MT, Keijsers E, Pretz Th, Feil A, and Jansen M (2013b) Pilot beverage carton collection and recycling Concise technical report. Report 1439 Tolvik Consulting (2011) 2011 Briefing Report: UK Waste Exports: Opportunity or Threat? June 2011 Vos S de, Görtzen J, Mulder E, Ligthart T, Hesseling W (2007) LCA of thermal treatment of waste streams in cement clinker kilns in Belgium. Comparison to alternative treatment options. TNO report I&T-A R2007/036 October Assignor Febelcem, Belgium Wenzel H, Høibye L, Grandahl RD, Hamelin L (2013) Life Cycle Assessment of bioenergy pathways for the future Danish energy system. Report for the Danish Energy Agency Main Report November 2013

78 78 / 79 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036

79 TNO report I TNO 2013 R t79 I Authentication Name and address of the principal Kennisinstituut Duurzame Verpakkingen (KIDV) Names of the cooperators Dr. T.N. (Tom) Ligthart, M.S. (Mark) Valkering MSc. lr. A.M.M. (Toon) Ansems Name and signature reviewer: Drs. A.K. van Harmelen Project Manager lr. R.A.W. Albers MPA Research Manager

80

81 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Appendix A 1/10 A. Recommendations of the Technological Environmental Review Committee 31th May 2013 REVIEW COMMITTEE PILOT BEVERAGE CARTONS Recommendations of the Technological Environmental Review Committee A meeting of the Technological Environmental Review Committee (TERC) was held on 29 May 2013 at the offices of TNO Hoofddorp, Amsterdam at which the project plan for the Pilot Beverage Cartons, technical and environmental work programme was discussed. The following are the observations and recommendations of the TERC in relation to the draft programme of work for the pilot. The responses of TNO regarding the recommendations on the LCA are shown as: Description of OBSERVATION 1 The project team has put together a thoughtful and credible programme of work to address the aims and objectives laid out in the Dutch framework treaty of 27 June 2012 article 3-6. It is recognised that the programme is ambitious not only in terms of the technological, scientific and practical challenges that it seeks to address, but is also efficient, fair and logical in the way that resources, know-how and expertise are being brought to bear over the short time period available to carry out the pilot. RECOMMENDATION 1 (Life Cycle Assessment, LCA) It is recommended that the LCA be based on a prioritized approach which provides focus on those aspects that up front are judged to having the greatest environmental significance. Based on the large experience from previous LCA studies on packaging recycling compared to incineration, the six most significant environmental benefits and disadvantages of beverage carton (BC) recycling are judged to be as listed below. Based on experience, the list is intended to be in decreasing order of significance, but, of course, the present study will reveal if this is applicable in the specific context of the pilot:

82 Appendix A 2/10 TNO report TNO 2013 R avoided materials, especially which type of avoided paper Avoided pulp quality will be the basis for selecting the avoided product (together with Niedeauer Mühle). Quality of polyolefins and alu will also be used to select avoided product. If this is not possible value corrected substitution will be used. 2. avoided waste incineration, especially which type of avoided electricity and heat. Also the lost energy recovery of the contaminants in the packaging, when recycling instead of burning, may have some importance Calorific value of beverage cartons + attached moisture/dirt will be taken into account. First of all this is relevant when comparing an alternative against the reference of collection followed by incineration in an MSWI. Avoided electricity and electrical efficiency of Dutch MSWIs plus the avoided heat and thermal efficiency is taken into account. In the base scenario the electricity on the Dutch High Voltage grid is used. For the exact type of avoided 3. avoided marginal waste management, especially as this is judged to be landfill It is likely that a reduction in the amount of beverage cartons going to the MSWI will lead to an increased need for combustible waste for those MSWIs. This will be addressed in a sensitivity analysis as the consequential approach is not included in the base scenarios as it is generally seen as introducing too much uncertainty in the LCA results. It will be tried to base it on the calorific value of the waste beverage cartons and of the imported RDF/SRF imported from the UK. 4. any hot water (and chemicals) used in pre-treatment (washing) of cartons before recycling As was already mentioned in the presentation for the review committee in Hoofddorp we will use the pre-cleaning of the post-consumer beverage cartons in the co-collection and separately collected alternatives. 5. any net consequence of cross contaminating other recyclables when collecting beverage cartons in comingled fractions; i.e. in terms of lost quality and/or quantity of other recyclables and/or in terms of higher organic pollution of the recycling water stream in the recycling paper mill During the Hoofddorp meeting we addressed the cross contamination of the other waste materials (plastic, paper & board) as an issue to be included in the base scenario of the LCA. The amounts lost and quality lost will be accounted for in the LCA. 6. induced wastewater treatment of the beverage carton contaminants washed out to the sewer during pre-treatment before recycling The pre-cleaning of the post-consumer beverage cartons in the cocollection and separately collected alternatives will not only lead to (hot) water use but also to an increase waste water flow going to a WWTP. This will be part of the LCA of those two alternatives.

83 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Appendix A 3/10 Induced net consequence on other material recovery 5 Induced wastewater treatment 6 Wastewater contamination Cross contamination of other recyclables Avoided marginal Avoided marginal Avoided material marginal production material production material production 1 Induced marginal heat production Heat/steam Induced marginal power production Waste collection Electricity Waste (1 ton) 4 Waste pretreatment Aluminium production - secondary PE production Paper - secondary production - secondary 1 Secondary material Avoided waste collection Avoided waste incineration 2 Continuous power District heating Avoided marginal waste man. (landfill) 3 Induced bulky waste incineration 2 Functional unit: 1 ton of waste managed Some comments and recommendations to the modeling of these issues are: 1. The avoided material marginals Recent studies suggest that the virgin paper marginal avoided when recycling is based on new plantations. The reason for paper mills moving away from using thinnings to using pulp wood from plantation being less cost per ton of wood from plantation. When assuming new plantation as the marginal, this should include emission of soil carbon from the changed use of land when establishing the plantation. The increase in recycling of post-consumer beverage cartons will lead to an increase of secondary pulp. The quality of the produced pulp will be leading for the avoided pulp. The products of the Niederauer Mühle, an important recycler, are testliner and corrugated board. The raw materials of these products on the European market are made of a mix of primary and secondary pulp.

84 Appendix A 4/10 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Also the assumed aluminium marginal is of some importance, especially as part of aluminium production takes place on Iceland with low carbon emissions, and part uses hydropower. But hydropower is limited and not likely to be the marginal. So overall, it is important which marginal aluminium and electricity behind it, is assumed. An important issue will be what type of aluminium (cast or wrought) is avoided and this will be an issue in the study. As the focus will be on the recycling of LPB we do not beforehand decide to include the consequential approach in a sensitivity analysis. The total European aluminium supply was produced in 2011 for 35% by European primary smelters, 30% is net-imported and 34% is recycled by European refiners and remelters 10. In Europe the use of primary aluminium is declining 11, while in Asia it increases. What is the marginal type of aluminium is hard to say at this moment. In the base scenario the ecoinvent data for secondary aluminium production will be used in a sensitivity data the data set of EAA will be used 12. Aluminium is used as a material input for the clinker kiln, no material recycling is included in the LCA. Further, the substitution ratio between recycled and virgin paper/board is important. On every recycling operation, especially in the pulper itself, the cellulose fiber is torn, and for the same reason there is a limit to how many times fibers can be recycled. This also translates into the fact that due to fiber quality and strength issues, more fiber is used when being a recycled fiber than when being a virgin fiber. In other contexts, a substitution ratio of 1:0.8 or 1:0.7 was found, meaning that 1 kg dry matter recycled fiber replaces only 0.7 or 0.8 kg of virgin fiber dry matter. It is recommended to use a substitution ratio around these figures. We will address this issue based on the quality found of the actual secondary pulp processed. 2. The lost waste incineration The assumed electricity marginal substituted by the waste incineration plants is the most significant lost benefit when doing recycling, and it is of utmost importance which electricity marginal is assumed. Especially in these years when many countries connected to the common electricity grid are planning quite significant transitions towards renewable energy systems. This goes for Denmark and Germany to a wide extent. The Dutch renewable energy plans are not familiar to the TERC. As the time perspective of the study is equivalent to the lifetime of 10 European Aluminium Association, 2012, Aluminium sector in Europe European Aluminium Association, 2012, Primary aluminium consumption in world regions 12 European Aluminium Association, 2013, Environmental Profile Report.

85 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Appendix A 5/10 the involved equipment types (approximately 30 years), the model should try to reflect both today s background system and the system as it looks in 2043 or around that time. This is of course more uncertain, but not less relevant, so a couple of different futures should be looked at. One such future could assume that significant electricity from wind and solar power is in the system, and further that biomass based power is in the system. A concrete scenario for 2043 (or around) could be to assume that avoided electricity is wind or solar power in 50% of the time and some fossil or biomass based power in 50% of the time. The point being that normal waste incineration has to run continuously, and thus cannot easily start/stop in response to the fluctuation renewable power production. An alternative like biogas is much better suited for this and would have another type of marginal in future renewable energy systems for the same reason. In the base scenario/analysis we will take the current high voltage mix of electricity on the Dutch grid. In case the alternatives show a considerable environmental effect of the shift of beverage cartons from the MSWI towards recycling a sensitivity analysis will be made. In this sensitivity analysis a consequential approach will be followed. At this moment it is most likely that a modern gas-fired power plant will be the marginal one. This as due to the future large increase in flexible gas-based capacity in Germany, Germany becomes a net exporter. Exports will be high especially during peak hours when residual demand in the Netherlands (demand corrected for renewable supply within the Netherlands) is high 13. Decision makers should know that the benefits of waste incineration from electricity and heat production, as they are today, may well change (be reduced) significantly in tomorrow s system. Importantly, this is not the same for paper carton recycling, as the major benefit of this is the avoided virgin paper which in turn mainly related to avoided land use change. On the contrary, most probably the induced environmental impacts from recycling (e.g. from energy consumption) may well reduce, when energy systems turn renewable, whereas avoided impacts may increase, if e.g. the land use change from paper production is pushed further towards higher carbon sensitive plantations. 3. Avoided landfill It seems that it is well acknowledged in the NL that Dutch waste incineration plants receive waste from abroad, especially the UK. There is little doubt that the Dutch waste incineration plants will seek to optimize their business if/when a BC recycling scheme is established, and that this will imply that they will seek to import even more waste when incineration capacity is released by the recycling scheme. Further, there is little doubt that they will be successful in this regards, 13 Jeroen de Joode, Paul Koutstaal, Özge Özdemir, 2013, Financing investment in new electricity generation capacity in Northwest Europe. Policy brief. May ECN-O

86 Appendix A 6/10 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 importing more UK waste or waste from other countries. Note, that it is the recycling scheme that releases incineration capacity. Finally, judging from the present waste statistics of Europe, this situation will prevail for at least 7-10 years ahead: throughout this period (or longer), each recycling initiative in countries with high waste incineration will most probably lead to increased transport of waste across borders and reduced landfill somewhere during this period. As said before, it is indeed likely that a reduction in the amount of beverage cartons going to the MSWI will lead to an increased need for combustible waste for those MSWIs. It will be tried to base it on the calorific value of the waste beverage cartons and of the imported RDF/SRF imported from the UK. The avoided landfill will be topic of a sensitivity analysis. This is becoming quite transparent among waste planners and waste stakeholders including NGOs. With the high national profile of the present BC pilot, it seems also evident that a lot of stakeholders with interests in recycling will take interest in the models and assumptions behind the LCA and the environmental claims of the study. As avoiding landfilling by filling up incineration capacity released by recycling is a clear and quite large environmental benefit of recycling, one can expect questions about how this is included. It will be difficult to justify not including this benefit by reference to general methodological approaches of how LCA were done historically. Because this benefit was not there or at least not as evident and transparent some years back, as it is today, because of the last few years having so clearly documented that it is real. The TERC therefore recommends that the benefit of allowing more import of waste to the NL, when doing a recycling scheme, and thereby achieving the benefit of less landfill emissions somewhere else, is modeled and shown transparently. Otherwise, there may well be justified criticism from stakeholders having relevant insight and wishing to see this part of the benefit of recycling. Note, that the heat value of the bulk waste taken in from being otherwise landfilled is different from (lower than) the heat value of the beverage carton taken out of the incinerator. As the substitution in the incinerator in practice is done on a volume basis, this implies a net difference in the heat and electricity produced by the incinerator. This is why our point 2 on lost waste incineration above is still relevant, even though incineration capacity is filled up. So the lost electricity and heat production from incineration, when establishing a recycling scheme, is the net difference between what is produced by incinerating the beverage cartons, and what will be produced when incinerating imported bulk waste.

87 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Appendix A 7/10 4. Water, energy and chemicals for pre-treatment Hot water especially has in other studies proven to be of some significance. When the householder prepares the beverage carton for recycling, it often involves washing, and often the hot water tap is opened for the purpose. Note, in this context, that in most households, it takes a while before the hot water arrives to the tap, simply because there is a volume of cold water in the piping system that is purged. It can quite easily be estimated how much cold water runs out before the hot water arrives. Often, a plumber will know how long time it typically takes, and from this an estimate of the volume can also be made. This volume of hot water will stand often be lost partly, because the thermal energy is released in places of the house where the heat is not utilized or at times in the year, where the heat is not utilized. So a percentage of the energy is lost, and the total energy consumption is much higher than what is just in the hot water used in the rinsing itself. We recommend that a small effort is done to estimate this loss, as it can be quite significant. Again, of course, it is important what type of marginal heat source is assumed, but often a natural gas burner in the house is a good assumption of today s marginal, whereas a heat pump or a pellet boiler, at least in Denmark, could be a good assumption for We will make an assumption of the extent of pre-cleaning of the consumer in our base study. This assumption will include the amounts of both cold and hot tap water used. In this case the volume of hot tap water is the volume of water used between the moment of opening the tap and closing the tap. This energy to bring this volume from 10 to 70 degrees Celsius is accounted for as are standstill losses. The mix of hot water systems from a recent Dutch study will be used 14, Cross contamination of other recyclables A concern of recycled paper/cardboard mills is the microbial growth in their water recycling stream. To lower water consumption, the mill will try to recycle as much water as possible, and a 95 % recycling degree was at some point the limit. Beyond this, it was difficult to cope with microbial growth and scaling problems (precipitation of minerals in the piping system). Introducing more contamination (yoghurt etc.) may change the ability to recycle water. Paper industry (probably corrugated cardboard manufacturers?) could be contacted in order to reveal their concerns on contamination it may relate more to N, P and micronutrients than to BOD.. 14 Marijke Menkveld, 2009, Kentallen warmtevraag woningen. ECN Jeeninga_1998_bepaling bandbreedte in de ontwikkeling van het huishoudelijk elektriciteitsverbruik

88 Appendix A 8/10 TNO report TNO 2013 R Energy consumption in wastewater treatment The contaminants washed out of the beverage cartons in households (yoghurt etc.) will not precipitate to any large degree in the primary settling tank at the wastewater treatment facility, but go through to the activated sludge or biofilm reactor. In most cases, it will give rise to electricity consumption for the BOD/COD removal in through aeration. The key figures for this electricity consumption was some time ago found to be around kwh/kg COD, but updated Dutch figures should be obtained for this. It is not seen as likely that pre-cleaning the beverage cartons will lead to a change in COD nor the power consumption nor sludge volume of the Dutch WWTPs. It was noted by the TERC that i. it is expected that the analysis will not overtly be sensitive to reject materials because flows associated with such materials can as a last resort be sent to incineration, and ii. the indicative time horizon of the study is about 30 years, as this is a typical lifetime of an incineration plant. As we study the current situation for the participating municipalities a consequential approach is not followed. RECOMMENDATION 2 (Representative number of municipalities) The aforementioned section of the framework treaty makes reference to carrying out a pilot in a "representative number of municipalities". Given the short timescale and resource constraints for this project and given the potential for the output of the pilot to be used to inform future policy-making and decision-taking processes, at present undefined, the term "representative number of municipalities" requires clarity. Such clarification of the term, which may require some degree of interpretation, should be set out with regard to the programme of work that has been determined, and the level and types of uncertainty, statistical or otherwise, as to the degree of representation that is expected to be achieved through the pilot. In particular, any gaps or shortcomings in representation should be identified at this early stage in the planning process so that limits of interpretation can be applied. It is recommended that the term representative should be explained, for example, in relation to essential characteristics of municipalities, the practical definition for urbanisation, incorporation of diverse mechanisms of collection and their routes, and the fact that the pilot is being carried out mainly in summer months. The explanation may also address representation in relation to concepts in recommendations 3, 4 and 5 (see below).

89 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Appendix A 9/10 This recommendation should not be interpreted in any way as a criticism of the planned programme of work but merely a recognition that any study to determine the representative aspects or characteristics of a system should set out clear definitions of important terms that underpin the scope of the work; this is a wellknown issue in polling studies, for example, which attempt to infer voting intentions of a population from limited samples. RECOMMENDATION 3 (Sulphate Pulp) It is recommended that the project team provide a justification as to why sulphate pulp replacement has been identified as the representative replacement. Furthermore, this justification should address the relationship(s) between sulphate pulp and a representative selection of paper products reliant upon or embodying or derived from such pulp. The quality of the pulp and the most likely avoided products is part of the study. RECOMMENDTION 4 (data quality) Resource constraints on the project necessitate reliance on third parties, such as collection, sorting and recycling centres, to provide the central project team with data, such as data on material types, packaging formats, and material tonnages. It is essential that such data are as accurate and representative as possible, and to this end it is recommended that the project team provide a clearly documented protocol to be provided to such third parties. It is recommended that the protocol incorporates a request to each third party to provide a written statement, supplementary to the data provided, of how representative that third party considers the data that has been provided. For example, the supplementary statement may address any unusual or specific conditions (e.g. estimation of volumes by eye) under which the data may have been accumulated. The study will show the data quality of the data used. RECOMMENDTION 5 (regional variation) It is recognised that a limitation of the study is that the central project team does not know the regional variation of beverage cartons placed on each regional market. To this end an approximation of homogeneity has been used (and a justification has been provided for that approximation). Given that the pilot is a national project of significant importance and is being widely publicised, it is recommended that the central project team make contact with the major retailers

90 Appendix A 10/10 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 and/or their representative bodies / associations / consortia to request data on regional sales of beverages, month-by-month. For example, request could be made for sales both of cartons incorporating and not incorporating aluminium, as this would provide critical insight into the tonnages of that material that might be expected to be collected through the various recycling chains documented in the project plan. It is not the purpose of this recommendation to seek competitive or commercially-sensitive data, but merely to ascertain important parameters defining the amount of material placed on the regional markets so as to reduce the uncertainty involved in the determination of representativeness. Prof. B Bilitewski Prof. H. Wenzel Dr. M. Gell 31 May 2013

91 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Appendix B 1/9 B. Recommendations of the Technological Environmental Review Committee 26 th November 2013 REVIEW COMMITTEE PILOT BEVERAGE CARTONS Recommendations of the Technological Environmental Review Committee A meeting of the Technological Environmental Review Committee (TERC) was held on 26 th November 2013 at the offices of TNO Hoofddorp, Amsterdam at which the project outcomes and reports for the Pilot Beverage Cartons, technical and environmental work programme were discussed. Two reports were made available for the review: Report 1 Pilot Beverage Cartons. Technical Report. Version dated 18 th November Report 2 Life Cycle Assessment of Beverage Carton Collection Systems. Version dated 21 st November The following are the observations and recommendations of the TERC in relation to the work reviewed on beverage cartons (BC s). The responses of TNO regarding the recommendations on the LCA are shown as: Description of OBSERVATION 1 The project team is to be commended on both the amount and quality of the work carried out to meet the aims and objectives laid out in the Dutch framework treaty of 27 June 2012 article 3-6. It is recognized that the timescales for the pilot have been very tight but nevertheless the team has brought to bear its resources, knowhow and expertise to deliver an excellent and comprehensive study that is of both national and international importance. It is recognized that the Dutch national pilot on beverage cartons is both ground-breaking in its scope and unique in its depth of investigations.

92 Appendix B 2/9 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 OBSERVATION 2 It is recognized by the TERC that at the time of the review meeting on 26 th November 2013 the two reports furnished for review were at a draft stage, some data are still awaited, and analysis of the results is still taking place. The following recommendations are therefore made cognisant of the development currently being progressed. RECOMMENDATION 1 (Structure of Report 1) The current draft of report 1 is not easy to read as there is an imbalance between (i) description of the context for and strategic imperative of the work and (ii) the technical descriptions and plethora of results, including numerous tables and figures. This imbalance makes it difficult to recognise the primary audience for the report and to gauge how well the report might read to that audience. It is recommended that the current draft report is converted en-masse to a series of technical appendices, without altering the order, nature, text or presentation of results (i.e. tables and figures). It is further recommended that a main body of the report is written for whom the intended audience is, for example, a policy maker or member of the public interested in environmental affairs. This will help to guide the style of the writing as well as inform the degree to which technical details of the study are included. This main body should be more that an Executive Summary. It is recommended that the main body of the report is kept to about pages and that it covers the following key points: i. Why do the pilot? This should include a description of why the pilot was initiated and an explanation of its strategic purpose. ii. The present situation. This should include an outline of the structure of typical beverage cartons and the materials they are constructed from and an overview of the current situation vis-à-vis the numbers of beverage cartons placed on the Dutch market and the current (as per 1Q 2013) collection and recycling infrastructure. iii. The unknowns to be investigated. This should provide an overview of the key parameters, characteristics, dynamics and behaviors (including consumer behaviors) of the end-of-life stages of beverage carton collection and recycling (C&R) which the pilot study was intended to investigate. iv. How the pilot was done. This should provide an overview of the how the pilot study was configured and carried out in order to uncover the unknowns.

93 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Appendix B 3/9 v. What was found? This should provide an overview of the key findings and discoveries of the investigation. It is recommended that this includes: a. A Figure comprising three Sankey diagrams illustrating full municipal waste stream, dirty BC s, and fibre to demonstrate how much of the full waste stream is constituted by recoverable BC material. This should be supplemented by an account (e.g. list) of typical mechanisms for which the BC and BC materials are lost through the C&R system as well as operational aspects of the EOL system that either enhance or diminish the recovery performance. b. Figures which show the big picture (e.g. net collection yield versus rural/urban collection characteristics) across all contributing collection systems in the pilot c. Analysis of factors governing the net collection yield. It is recognized that there is some uncertainty over the total amount of BC placed on the Dutch market (circa 70 kt as per a 2011 study) and the level of regional variation of tonnages. There is some indication that tonnages per capita in rural areas are greater than those in urban areas (by about 10%). Failure to properly account for rural/urban characteristics can, when using national data (e.g. the 70kt estimate), lead to distortion of geo-specific data points, such as yields greater than 100%. Steps should be taken in the analysis to avoid such anomalies; explanation of those steps should be provided for transparency. vi. Implications of the findings. This should be a discussion of the implications of the key findings in terms of how they shed light on different ways in which future pathways for evolution of the Dutch BC C&R infrastructure may be evaluated. vii. Recommendations. Two lists of recommendations based on the findings from the pilot study should be presented: firm recommendations and tentative recommendations. The firm recommendations should be ones which are recommendations irrespective of evolutionary pathway options for the C&R infrastructure. For example, one such firm recommendation could be to recommend that labeling on BC s carry an advisory message that it is sufficient for consumers to wash BC s only in cold (rather than hot) water. Tentative recommendations are those which might inform the evaluation of policy making for evolutionary options of C&R infrastructure. The recommendations should also include a summary of further investigations that may usefully be used to provide more in-depth insights into specific aspects of the C&R systems for BC (and related) waste streams than was possible through the six month national pilot.

94 Appendix B 4/9 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 The main body of the report should make reference to the detailed materials in the appendices. These appendices should be of sufficient transparency, clarity and detail to allow in principle for someone skilled in the art to reproduce a similar pilot study in a further work if necessary. (This comment also applies to report 2). RECOMMENDATION 2 (Report 2) The LCA report demonstrates a large amount of work including among other aspects many sensitivity analyses, which is good. It does, however, also show signs of being prepared in a short time due to the time pressure. This has resulted in a lack of transparency on important issues, including: The model for the avoided landfill emissions should be clearly stated and reported in a way that allows the reader to understand the calculations Description of avoided landfill has been extended The model and calculations for the cleaning of the cartons in the household should be presented, and a worst case cleaning illustrated including a pipeloss of hot water for cleaning when turning on the hot tap in the house just to illustrate the significance of this TNO has most likely already taken a worse case in the modeling of consumer cleaning. A survey made by Motivaction showed that only 7% rinse the beverage carton with hot water. TNO assumes that 25% of the consumers do this. The assumed degree of contamination of the cartons (in terms of kg contaminant COD/kg carton dry matter) should be clearly presented and the best would be to show this for each category of packaged good (youghurt, pudding, milk, orange juice, etc.) in order to reveal if the contamination implies different optimal pathways for the various types of carton TNO composition of the effluent of the WWTP when treating a 1:50 yoghurt:water solution has been provided in Appendix D Extensive inventory. The model and calculations of the wastewater treatment should be made more clear Details of treatment of yoghurt rinsing water in WWTP has been provided in Appendix D. The model of the waste incineration should be clear including the energy recovery of the contamination COD Unclear what the review committee meant with this remark. Needs clarification. Incineration of product remnants (Yoghurt) has been included in the study.

95 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Appendix B 5/9 The avoided virgin paper model and calculation should be clear. As it stands now, it says that only Q loss is avoided at the meeting it became clear through discussions that the model actually calculates the avoided virgin paper as 1 - Q loss, which is the right way to do it in the actual case. The text should, therefore, be altered accordingly. Text has now been corrected to reflect the actual modeling. Biogenic CO 2 emissions were at the meeting claimed not to be included. However, significant avoided GHG emissions are derived from the avoided virgin paper production these should be tracked to identify their origin. This way of calculating the global warming potential has been done in a sensitivity analysis. It shows that this leads to larger differences between the systems. However, the ranking is not affected. The functional unit was somewhat unclear it should be reported exactly what the 1000 kg of carton refer to i.e. where in the chain of events and what is included. The description of the functional unit has been redefined and made more transparent by rewriting the text and adding a flow chart as example. The transparency could be improved with respect to showing the breakdown on contributions. It would be beneficial for the interpretation to be able to see the following individual contributions: o The household cleaning (maybe this is already included, but it should, thus, be explained where it is seen) The results of cleaning by the consumer are now presented separately before going to the results of the total systems. o The wastewater treatment The results of the WWTP has been included in cleaning by the consumer and presented there. Details of the rinsing water are given In Appendix D o The energy recovery (in the MSWI) from the contamination part and the carton separately In the impact assessment of the MSWI Reference scenario these contribution are now shown separately. o The benefits from the recovered energy and the recovered materials separately The results of energy and material recovery are now presented separately before going to the results of the total systems.

96 Appendix B 6/9 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Inclusion of biogenic GHG emissions: As mentioned, biogenic GHG emissions are presumably not included. This calls for critique as this topic is one of the most debated issues in any LCA dealing with use of biomass at any point in the system like the avoided virgin paper in the present system. It is recommended that biogenic emissions are included using e.g. a 20 year as well as a 100 year time horizon for annualizing the net change in carbon stock on the affected land areas in the system. As mentioned at the meeting, there seems to be consensus that the virgin paper marginal moved towards plantation of short rotation plantation like Eucalyptus. In a sensitivity analysis (see Appendix G Sensitivity analyses; Impact assessment of biogenic carbon dioxide) we have included immission of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and biogenic GHG emissions in the LCIA. This also includes the loss of carbon from the soil. The calculations of the carbon balance were made for a Eucalyptus plantation on previous savannah. Choice of marginal supply: In the model of burning RDF in cement kilns, petcoke was assumed as one of the avoided fuel types. We question whether this reflects the resulting consequence of using RDF in cement kilns, as petcoke is a constrained coproduct of that it is assumed to always find a use. Rather, hardcoal is assumed to be the resulting market response to using RDF in cement kilns. We have changed our model of avoided fuels for the clinker kiln from a petcoke, hard coal and fuel oil mix to hard coal only. Sensitivity analysis: When including biogenic GHG emissions from virgin paper, more than one land type should be included. Candidates for hosting a plantation are grassland (today used for animal grazing), savannah in Africa (or similar land types in South America or Asia) and forest land. In the base case study and in the sensitivity analysis on biogenic GHG emissions we have assumed Plantation on high C grassland/savannah with higher C-stock to be the marginal land use. This followed from the comments on our avoided pulp process. This showed a considerable effect on the LCA. We did not include other initial types of land use to limit the amount of work we had in our highly limited amount of time.

97 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Appendix B 7/9 Different carton cleaning behaviors in the household should be shown When the data form Motivaction of consumer behaviour became available it turned out that our approach to consumer cleaning was a worst case scenario, especially considering the use of hot tap water. As this worst case showed to have contributions less than 10% to GWP, highly influenced by fossil energy use, further cleaning scenarios with reduced energy consumption were not considered. Material recovery of the aluminum and plastic fractions should be included as a supplement to the energy recovery of these fractions For the aluminium send to the clinker kiln we show the contribution of energy Future energy systems should be discussed, not least the future electricity and heat grids, which may well entail other marginal supplies 20 years from now, and thus other benefits of displacing electricity and heat should be considered. This could be quantified by assuming other such marginal including being fully or partly derived from renewable energy sources. As the scope of the study is the current situation in the municipalities participating in the pilot and not the future situation we do not need a discussion on future energy systems. To give insight in the future potential the studied systems have a future outlook has been presented. This outlook is only considering (near) future improvements of the systems itself, i.e. increased collection rates and sorting efficiencies. Another scenario based upon future energy scenarios is thus not very relevant for the scope of the study and will not affect the ranking of the systems. Methodology description: In the introductory comparison of attributional and consequential LCA approaches, aspects of uncertainty are discussed in a way that seems to suggest that the choice of method can introduce uncertainty. This is not considered to be the case; rather the uncertainty is inherent in the studied system and the decisions to be supported, and the task of the method is to reveal and address the inherent uncertainty with highest possible transparency. We mean that additional to the uncertainties in the system itself selecting a consequential approach also introduces uncertainty from the consequential model. An important aspect of uncertainty is that the study should aim to reflect environmental aspects of the future, not the past or the present. See the point mentioned about future energy systems above. The scope of the study is the current situation for the pilot. Specifically addressing future aspects is outside this scope.

98 Appendix B 8/9 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Partial analysis or different references: When studying the post-separation scenarios, an issue of comparability arises. If the reference for the post-separation scenario is the MSWI as for the other scenarios, then the comparison of the environmental consequences of the carton flow seen in isolation becomes quite misleading. The reason is, that if MSWI of the whole MSW stream is the reference, then the post-separation entails so many other changes of the whole MSW flow that it becomes meaningless to compare the two pathways of the cartons seen in isolation The situation we study is described in the following comment of the review committee. If, however, the reference for the post-separation of the cartons is that there is already an automated sorting system in place, at which (part of) the carton stream is now also picked out for recycling, then the situation is different. In this case, it does make sense to compare the pathways of the carton flow in isolation from the rest of the MSW flow, but the reference to post-separation for recycling is not MSWI, but an energy recovery of the RDF from this already existing sorting plant. This would make more sense, and imply that the MSWI is only a reference for the separate collection scenarios, whereas the energy recovery from the carton as part of an RDF is the reference for the post-separation scenarios. We already had modeled the REC (energy efficient incinerator specific for post-separation) as the incineration process that is affected (less beverage cartons go to the REC if they are separated from the MSW and the beverage cartons not separated are send to this REC). Furthermore, the import of RDF from the UK to compensate for the beverage cartons not incinerated anymore is also incinerated in the REC. The text in the main report has been improved to make this clear RECOMMENDATION 3 (Reports 1 and 2) It was recommended in the TERC report from the review meeting held on 29 th May 2013 that analysis should take a future-oriented perspective that covers several decades (concomitant with infrastructure lifespan). For this reason, it is recommended that that the sensitivity analysis be extended to cover cases that go beyond 40% recovery yield, which is unnecessarily restrictive. Specifically, it is recommended that recovery rates of 40%, 60% and 80% are assessed (perhaps including also 50% and 70%). The analysis should be put in context of potential variations in biomass demand, from low- to high-biomass futures, taking into account potential shifts in the future energy system may change in the coming decades as renewable energies play a more prominent role in the overall Dutch energy system

99 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Appendix B 9/9 In discussion with the Pilot s project team (KIDV, Rebel, Wageningen UR and TNO) it has been decided to give a future outlook (Ch. 7) based upon increased collection rates and increased sorting efficiencies. The scenario consists of a collection rate of 40% for the separate collection scenario and collection rates of 75% for both co-collection with paper & board and cocollection with plastic. Furthermore, the efficiency of the sorting processes for both the post-separation system and the co-collection with plastic system are assumed to be 80%. For co-collection with paper no sorting is assumed; the beverage cartons are recycled together with the paper & board. The reference scenario remains unchanged. The graph in section 5.4 Comparison shows the clear relation between the total recovery rate of the systems and the shadow costs. From this graph the reader can give a fair prediction of what an increase of the total recovery of a system means for the environmental performance. We therefore consider only one future scenario. RECOMMENDATION 4 (Reports 1 and 2) The current text of the draft Report 1 (to be consigned to appendices) should be reviewed closely so that assumptions are properly justified. There are several instances where approximations are justified as being plausible without providing any evidence (e.g. by means of reference) or explanation as to why it should be so. All definitions need to be made rigorous and complete. For example, the definition of functional unit in Report 2 needs to be defined in terms of the nature of the 1000kg of BC to which the definition refers. This recommendation is not a request to extend calculations and configurations to all potential variations and possibilities, but merely to be given sufficient information to the reader so that the report is left with no ambiguities and those practiced in the art (e.g. of performing LCA) can if necessary reproduce the approach and method which has been deployed. We have rewritten the description of the Functional Unit and added graphs to explain more clearly what is included in the 1000 kg of post-consumer BCs. Prof. B Bilitewski Prof. H. Wenzel Dr. M. Gell 3rd December 2013

100

101 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Appendix C 1/5 C. Extensive Goal and Scope definition Introduction In chapter 2 of the main report the goal and scope for the study are defined. This appendix gives additional explanation regarding the ILCD guidelines about the decision context and about the choice for the CML 2001 LCIA method and shadow prices. Decision context The ILCD Handbook (European Commission et al., 2010a) describes a number of archetype goal situations: A, B, C1, and C2. The requirements that are set for an LCA are dependent of the relevant situation. The main differences between the archetypal goal Situations A, B, and C lie in the Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) modelling. Situation A: comprises micro-level, product or process-related decision support studies. The life cycle is modelled by depicting the existing supply-chain, i.e. attributionally. The foreground system should aim at using primary data from the producer / operator and secondary data from suppliers and downstream users/customers. Background processes should represent the average market consumption mix. Generic data from third-party data providers can be used for the background system. Situation B: comprises meso-level and macro-level, strategic ("policy") decision support studies. The analysed systems shall be modelled as in Situation A, except for those processes in the background system that are affected by large-scale consequences of the analysed decision. This is the consequential approach. The affected background processes are modelled with the mix of the long-term marginal processes / systems. Situation C: a retrospective accounting / documentation of what has happened (or will happen based on extrapolating forecasting), with no interest in any additional consequences that the analysed system may have in the background system or on other systems. As was mentioned in section 2.2 Decision context we will limit the consequential approach to those influences on the background and other systems that have clearly proven to be currently affected. This is the case when steering the beverage cartons away from the MSWI, leading to the import of Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) and Solid Recovered Fuel (SRF) from the UK. The marginal process is in that case landfill in the UK. For the other potentially affecting processes the interpretation will be made during the execution of the LCA, the base will be attributional modelling (situation A in Table 1) In Situation A the background and other systems are not or only affected at a small scale, in Situation B these systems are affected at a large scale. Situation A is typically at the level of products, but also at the level of sites/companies and other systems, with no or exclusively small-scale consequences in the background system or on other systems. The consequences of the analysed decision alone are

102 Appendix C 2/5 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 too small to overcome thresholds and trigger structural changes of installed capacity elsewhere via market mechanisms. Situation B deals with decision support for strategies with large-scale consequences in the background system or other systems. The analysed decision alone is large enough to result, via market mechanisms, in structural changes of installed capacity in at least one process outside the foreground system of the analysed system. Note that only those processes that are affected by these large-scale consequences fall under Situation B. The large scale consequences are to be modelled using a consequential approach i.e. these affected processes shall be modelled as the expected mix of the long-term marginal processes. The marginal processes are those processes resulting in additionally installed or de-installed capacity. A disadvantage of the use of marginal processes, especially the long-term processes, is that considerable uncertainty is introduced into the LCA and its results. To better understand uncertainty in LCA some elucidation is given. In LCA uncertainty is present in both the product system and in the environmental system (see Figure 46). In the product system for instance the exact use of energy or raw materials is not always known or the exact type of production processes are not fully known. The impact assessment models, like the CML and ReCiPe methods, have a global approach in their modelling and regional differences in the sensitivity of the ecosystems receiving the emissions is not accounted for. This introduces uncertainty at that point, which is the largest for impact categories in which fate and effect are modelled like human toxicity and ecotoxicity. Even impact categories, like global warming, acidification, eutrophication, and photo-oxidant creation, where the uncertainty is small compared to the toxicity categories, still have considerable uncertainty (Geisler et al., 2005). Real World -Spatial variability -Temporal variability -Variability in sources/objects Life Cycle Assessment Product System -Parameter uncertainty -Model uncertainty -Uncertainty due to choices Environmental System -Parameter uncertainty -Model uncertainty -Uncertainty due to choices Figure 46 Variability in the real world and uncertainty in LCA (after Huijbregts, 1998). Using long-term marginal processes, as is done in the consequential approach of Situation B, introduces additional uncertainty as they address processes likely to be affected in the future, which is per definition uncertain. In an LCA one wants to keep uncertainty as small as possible because the larger the uncertainty the larger the differences between alternatives have to be for those differences to be significant.

103 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Appendix C 3/5 LCIA method As is stated in paragraph 2.6 of the main report the CML 2001 LCIA method and shadow prices will be used for the LCIA. More explanation about this method and why this method is chosen is given in this appendix. The CML 2001 LCIA method includes several impact categories including abiotic depletion, global warming, ecotoxicity and land competition (see for the complete list Table 2). The baseline impact categories from this method will be used in this study. The CML 2001 method has been used all over Europe and the rest of the world also for studies focussing on waste treatment (including recycling, recovery and disposal). We prefer the use of midpoints in impact assessment as endpoint modelling requires further modelling and introduces additional uncertainty. Besides the CML 2001 method, other LCIA methods also exist and are commonly applied such as EcoIndicator 99, ReCiPe and the methods recommended by the ILCD (European Commission et al., 2011). ReCiPe (Goedkoop et al., 2009) and the methods recommended by the ILCD will be used in a sensitivity analyses to see whether the ranking of the alternatives is affected. Figure 47 Coupling inventory results to environmental impacts (midpoints) and damage to Areas of Protection (endpoints) (after European Commission et al., 2010b). In our impact assessment we have taken the emission of carbon dioxide from biogenic sources, such as the fibres in the cardboard, as carbon neutral. While CO 2 from fossil sources has a characterisation factor of 1 kg CO 2 eq. for GWP, biogenic based CO 2 has a characterisation factor of 0 kg CO 2 eq.

104 Appendix C 4/5 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 CML Impact Categories Abiotic resource depletion The abiotic resource depletion potential (ADP) is an indicator for the depletion of abiotic (mineral) resources like crude oil, natural gas and ores. It is based on the extraction of each resource relative to the ultimate reserve of the resource in the earth s crust. Although the indicator is dimensionless the ratio for each resource is expressed relative to that of antimony (Sb) hence the unit for ADP is kg Sb equivalents. Global warming The baseline impact category for global warming (GWP) considers a time scale of the effects of 100 years. For each greenhouse gas the radiative forcing of 1 kg emitted to the air is calculated over the period of 100 years. The decay rate of the greenhouse gas is taken into account. The radiative forcing over this period is related to that of 1 kg CO 2. In the method used here the uptake from carbon dioxide by plants from the atmosphere has been given a characterisation factor of zero. Consequently the release of biogenic carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, for example by the combustion of biomass, has also been set to zero. The embedding of biogenic carbon in products has not been taken into account. Ozone depletion The impact of stratospheric ozone depletion substances is modelled in the ozone depletion potential, which assumes a steady state situation. Stratospheric ozone depletion leads to thinning of the barrier against UV-B radiation from the sun. This would lead to human health effects and effects on ecosystems. The model is based upon the ozone depletion potentials (ODP) of substances set by the World Meteorological Organisation. Ecotoxicity and Human toxicity The toxicity impact potentials (HTP, FAETP, MAETP and TETP) are based on modelling with the USES 2.0 model developed at the Dutch RIVM institute for health and environment. It takes into accounts the fate, exposure and (eco)toxicological effect of substances. The human toxicity potential is based on the daily intake of a substance relative to the acceptable daily intake. The eco-toxicity potentials are based on the ratio of the predicted environmental concentration versus the predicted no-effect concentration. For the baseline categories the time horizon has been set at infinity. For each toxic substance, the toxicity potentials are expressed as 1,4-dichlorobenzene equivalents/ kg emission. Photochemical ozone creation (summer smog) Photo-oxidants are reactive substances that are formed in the atmosphere by the action of sunlight on primary pollutants. This phenomenon is also known as summer smog. The creation of photo-oxidants, such as ozone, is modelled by the UNECE trajectory model and results in factors for the photochemical ozone creation potential POCP. These factors are taken relative to that of ethylene (C2H2). Photooxidants can cause health problems and do damage to crops and ecosystems. Acidification Acidifying substances have numerous impacts on soils, ecosystems, organisms, crops and building materials. The impact of acidifying substances is modelled by the RAINS10 model which describes the fate and deposition of these substances.

105 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Appendix C 5/5 The baseline impact category AP is based on the European situation. The AP factors give the maximum acidification potential; the actual effect will depend on local circumstances. Eutrophication The impact of macronutrients like nitrogen and phosphate is described in the Eutrophication potential EP. Increased macronutrient levels may give rise to shifts in species composition and, undesired increase in biomass in both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. The decomposition of the additional biomass may lead to anoxic situations especially in aquatic ecosystems. This will also affect the ecosystems. Because certain chemicals may also reduce oxygen levels in aquatic ecosystems COD is also given an EP factor (of PO43--eq.). Land Competition The last impact category is Land competition (LC). It gives the area of land to be used during a certain period. Hence its unit is in area times time (m 2 a). The impact only considers the occupation of land during a certain period not the impacts on biodiversity or other ecosystem impacts.

106

107 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Appendix D 1/17 D. Extensive inventory In this appendix accompanies chapter 3 of the main report. Additional information about the studied recycling processes is given. Details recycling processes For the inventory data for this process the ecoinvent unit process Paper recycling, no deinking at plant/rer is modified. The following modifications are made: - Since the input of waste paper for this study are the collected beverage cartons, the input of waste paper is removed from the ecoinvent unit process. - The treatment of residual materials in the process (plastic, steel, wood, textiles et cetera) are modelled separately, therefore these are also removed from the ecoinvent unit process. - The output of the ecoinvent unit process is paper, rather than pulp which is the product of the process in this study. Based on Utlu and Kincay (2013) an estimate of the fractions of electricity use in the process that is used for the actual pulping and for the subsequent paper production has been derived. The fraction of electricity use that can be attributed to the actual pulping process has been determined to be Similar to the electricity use, also the use of heat can be divided between the pulp production and the paper production. An estimate of 10% heat use for the pulping process has and 90% for paper production been provided by Delkeskamp Verpackunswerke. Details consumer cleaning Given the potential content of moisture dirt of 40% of the gross mass and an average mass of the beverage carton of 25 g the potential amount of moisture and dirt is 16,7 g. The experiment by Thoden van Velzen et al. 2013a shows that after rinsing with 200 ml water about the moisture and dirt content is about 19%. (See also Figure 48) This means that nearly 11 gram of product residues has been rinsed out. The volume of water needed to rinse out 1 kg of product residues is thus roughly 20 litres. It is however likely that consumers will probably let the tap running if they rinse a second time. As this increases the use of tap water a water consumption of 30 l per kg product residues is likely.

108 Appendix D 2/17 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Figure 48 Average moisture and dirt content per category of beverage cartons directly after consumption, after rinsing with 100 ml cold water and after subsequent rinsing with 100 ml hot water (Thoden van Velzen et al., 2013). We assumed that consumers, when rinsing the beverage cartons, will use cold or hot water. We assume that 50% of the consumers that rinse use hot water; that they just turn open the hot tap and almost immediately start rinsing one or more times and do not wait for the water to reach its temperature an estimate of the energy use for hot water can be made. This means that no hot water, and so energy for heating it, is lost by consumers waiting for the hot tap water reaching its set temperature. The temperature at which the water enters the boiler is estimated at 10 C and the temperature reached is 50 C. The energy consumption is approximately 0.17 MJ per l hot water. We assume 50% electrical boilers and 50% gas fired boilers. So, for 50% cold and 50% hot water the energy consumption is MJ per l water used for rinsing. From data received from Motivaction (see Table 13) it appears that less than 50% of the consumers use hot water for rinsing. We keep the 50% as a worst case scenario in our base calculations. Table 13 Answers on cleaning behaviour of consumers involved in the pilot of separate collection of beverage cartons (n=1140; multiple answers possible). Answer I empty the beverage carton by pouring or shaking out the contents 40% I empty the beverage carton by squeezing out the contents 46% I rinse the beverage carton with cold water 28% I rinse the beverage carton with hot water 7% I do not empty or clean the beverage carton in any way 7%

109 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Appendix D 3/17 For the several collection systems the amount of dirt and moisture in the collected beverage cartons has been measured () the result is shown in Table 14 Overview of the fractions dirt and moisture in the collected beverage cartons based on the brut weight of the collected beverage cartons Collection option Collection system Amount of dirt and moisture Separate Drop-off no diftar 20 % Drop-off diftar 33 % Kerbside 28 % With carrier Plastics 29 % Paper and board 28 % Post-separation Post-separation 40 % With MSW MSW incineration 40 % Treatment of yoghurt rinsing water in WWTP The modelling of the treatment of the rinsing water has been done with the ecoinvent tool for waste water treatment (Doka, 2002). The assumption has been made that the rinsing water is further diluted by other relatively clean waste water streams form the household and resembles a 1:50 yoghurt-water solution. The results of this modelling are shown here. The composition of yoghurt was based on medium fat yoghurt (RIVM, 2013). The exact composition can be found in Table 15. Table 15 Composition of 1 m 3 untreated yoghurt rinsing water to sewage. Composition of untreated waste water to sewage All figures are in kg/m 3 water yoghurt 1:50 1 m 3 Group Item Unit mean GSD amount Carbon Chemical Oxygen Demand [kg/m3] % COD as O2 C Total organic carbon TOC [kg/m3] % as C N Total Kjeldahl TKN as N [kg/m3] % P Total P-tot. as P [kg/m3] % Other Selenium Se [kg/m3] % Zinc Zn [kg/m3] % Iron Fe [kg/m3] % Calcium Ca [kg/m3] % Potassium K [kg/m3] % Magnesium Mg [kg/m3] % Sodium Na [kg/m3] % Technology Capacity class of WWTP 2

110 Appendix D 4/17 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Tech Share of sludge to incineration w% of dry substance 0% Tech Share of sludge to agriculture w% of dry substance 0% Category Share of biogenic carbon in sewage 100% Table 16 Process for treatment, 1 m 3 yoghurt rinsing water 1:50. to wastewater treatment, class 2/CH U. SimaPro 7.3 processes Date: Time: Project Pilot Drankenkartons_2111 Process Category type Process identifier Type Process name waste treatment Standard Unit process treatment, sewage, to wastewater treatment, class 2/m3/CH Status Time period Geography Technology Representativeness Waste treatment Unspecified Unspecified Unspecified Unspecified Unspecified allocation Cut off rules Capital goods Boundary with nature Infrastructure Unspecified Unspecified Unspecified No Date Record Data entry by: René van Gijlswijk Telephone: ; empa@ecoinvent.org; Company: EMPA; Country: CH Generator Generator/publicator: Gabor Doka Telephone: ; doka@ecoinvent.org; Company: DOKA; Country: CH Literature references Windkraft/2007/Burger, B. Data has been published entirely in Copyright: true; Page: part IV Data treatment Verification Extrapolations: wastewater compositions from literature and/or estimates Proof reading validation: passed. Validator: Niels Jungbluth Telephone: ; esu-services@ecoinvent.org; Company: ESU; Country: CH Comment Translated name: Behandlung, Abwasser, in Abwasserreinigung, Gr.Kl. 2 Included processes: Infrastructure materials for municipal wastewater treatment plant, transports, dismantling. Land use burdens. Remark: Wastewater purified in a moderatly large municipal wastewater treatment plant (capacity class 2), with an average capacity size of per-captia-equivalents PCE. Wastewater contains (in kg/m3): COD: (GSD=122.5%); BOD:

111 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Appendix D 5/17 System description (GSD=122.5%); DOC: (GSD=122.5%); TOC: (GSD=122.5%); SO4-S: (GSD=122.5%); S part.: (GSD=122.5%); NH4-N: (GSD=122.5%); NO3-N: (GSD=122.5%); NO2-N: (GSD=122.5%); N part.: (GSD=122.5%); N org. solv.: (GSD=122.5%); PO4-P: (GSD=122.5%); P part.: (GSD=122.5%); Cl: (GSD=224.1%); F: (GSD=224.1%); As: (GSD=224.1%); Cd: (GSD=223.8%); Co: (GSD=223.8%); Cr: (GSD=223.8%); Cu: (GSD=223.8%); Hg: (GSD=223.8%); Mn: (GSD=224.1%); Mo: (GSD=223.8%); Ni: (GSD=223.8%); Pb: (GSD=223.8%); Sn: (GSD=224.1%); Zn: (GSD=223.8%); Si: (GSD=224.1%); Fe: (GSD=224.1%); Ca: (GSD=224.1%); Al: (GSD=224.1%); K: (GSD=224.1%); Mg: (GSD=224.1%); Na: (GSD=224.1%); ; Geography: Specific to the technology mix encountered in Switzerland in Well applicable to modern treatment practices in Europe, North America or Japan. Technology: Three stage wastewater treatment (mechanical, biological, chemical) including sludge digestion (fermentation) according to the average technology in Switzerland Version: 2.2 Energy values: Undefined Local category: Entsorgungssysteme Local subcategory: Abwasserreinigung Source file: XML Ecoinvent Waste treatment Treatment, yoghurt to wastewater treatment, class 2/CH U 1 m3 All waste types _Drankenkartons Avoided products Resources Materials/fuels Sodium hydroxide, 50% in H2O, production mix, at plant/rer U Quicklime, milled, packed, at plant/ch U Hydrochloric acid, 30% in H2O, at 5,16847E-05 kg burden from sludge incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model 9,37054E-06 kg burden from sludge incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model 7,63213E-07 kg burden from sludge

112 Appendix D 6/17 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 plant/rer U Iron (III) chloride, 40% in H2O, at plant/ch U Chemicals organic, at plant/glo U Chemicals inorganic, at plant/glo U Cement, unspecified, at plant/ch U Transport, freight, rail/rer U incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model kg direct wastewater treatment plant burden plus burden from sludge incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model 0 kg burden from sludge incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model 1,27202E-06 kg burden from sludge incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model kg burden from sludge incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model tkm direct wastewater treatment plant burden plus burden from sludge incineration. Uncertainty calculated from

113 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Appendix D 7/17 Transport, lorry 20-28t, fleet average/ch U Ammonia, liquid, at regional storehouse/ch U Natural gas, burned in industrial furnace low-nox >100kW/RER U Titanium dioxide, production mix, at plant/rer U Chromium oxide, flakes, at plant/rer U Electricity, low voltage, at grid/ch U wastewater composition and treatment model tkm direct wastewater treatment plant burden plus burden from sludge incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model kg burden from sludge incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model MJ burden from sludge incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model 1,65332E-05 kg burden from sludge incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model 3,37413E-07 kg burden from sludge incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model 1, kwh direct wastewater treatment plant burden.

114 Appendix D 8/17 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Iron sulphate, at plant/rer U Aluminium sulphate, powder, at plant/rer U Slurry spreading, by vacuum tanker/ch U Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model kg direct wastewater treatment plant burden. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model kg direct wastewater treatment plant burden. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model m3 burden from sludge spreading. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model Electricity/heat Municipal waste incineration plant/ch/i U Slag compartment/ch/i U Residual material landfill facility/ch/i U 2,65297E-10 p burden from sludge incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model 1,68821E-10 p burden from sludge incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model 2,46422E-11 p burden from sludge

115 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Appendix D 9/17 Electricity from waste, at municipal waste incineration plant/ch U Heat from waste, at municipal waste incineration plant/ch U Sewer grid, class 2/CH/I U Wastewater treatment plant, class 2/CH/I U incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model kwh burden from sludge incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model MJ burden from sludge incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model 1,68317E-07 km uncertainty heeded in exchanges of the module 1,9883E-09 p uncertainty heeded in exchanges of the module Emissions to air NMVOC, nonmethane volatile organic compounds, unspecified origin high. pop. 3,35E-05 kg direct digester gas emission. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model Carbon monoxide, biogenic high. pop kg direct digester gas emission plus emission from sludge incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model Carbon dioxide, biogenic high. pop. 2, kg direct wastewater treatment plant emission plus direct digester gas emission plus emission from sludge incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model Methane, biogenic high. pop kg direct digester gas emission

116 Appendix D 10/17 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 plus emission from sludge incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model Nitrogen oxides high. pop kg direct digester gas emission plus emission from sludge incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model Ammonia high. pop kg direct digester gas emission plus emission from sludge incineration plus emission from sludge spreading. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model Dinitrogen monoxide high. pop kg direct wastewater treatment plant emission plus direct digester gas emission plus emission from sludge incineration plus emission from sludge spreading. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model Cyanide high. pop. 1,03E-05 kg emission from sludge incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model Phosphorus high. pop. 9,17E-06 kg direct digester gas emission plus emission from sludge incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model Selenium high. pop. 3,04E-14 kg Zinc high. pop. 1,38E-11 kg direct digester gas emission plus emission from sludge incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model Iron high. pop. 1,79E-06 kg direct digester gas emission plus emission from sludge incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model

117 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Appendix D 11/17 Calcium high. pop. 2,87E-06 kg direct digester gas emission plus emission from sludge incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model Aluminium high. pop. 4,26E-06 kg direct digester gas emission plus emission from sludge incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model Magnesium high. pop. 2,32E-07 kg direct digester gas emission plus emission from sludge incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model Heat, waste high. pop. 13,0515 MJ direct wastewater treatment plant emission plus emission from sludge incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model Emissions to water Ammonium, ion river kg direct wastewater treatment plant emission. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model Nitrite river kg direct wastewater treatment plant emission. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model Nitrogen river kg direct wastewater treatment plant emission. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model BOD5, Biological Oxygen Demand river kg sewer overload discharge plus direct wastewater treatment plant emission plus emission from sludge incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model COD, Chemical Oxygen Demand river kg sewer overload discharge plus direct wastewater

118 Appendix D 12/17 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 treatment plant emission plus emission from sludge incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model TOC, Total Organic Carbon river kg sewer overload discharge plus direct wastewater treatment plant emission plus emission from sludge incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model DOC, Dissolved Organic Carbon river kg sewer overload discharge plus direct wastewater treatment plant emission plus emission from sludge incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model Sulfate river kg sewer overload discharge plus direct wastewater treatment plant emission plus emission from sludge incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model Nitrate river kg sewer overload discharge plus direct wastewater treatment plant emission plus emission from sludge incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model Phosphate river kg sewer overload discharge plus direct wastewater treatment plant emission plus emission from sludge incineration plus emission from sludge spreading. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model Chloride river kg sewer overload discharge plus direct wastewater treatment plant emission plus emission from sludge

119 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Appendix D 13/17 Selenium river 1,21E-05 kg incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model Zinc, ion river 6,18E-07 kg sewer overload discharge plus direct wastewater treatment plant emission plus emission from sludge incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model Iron, ion river 2,85E-05 kg sewer overload discharge plus direct wastewater treatment plant emission plus emission from sludge incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model Calcium, ion river kg sewer overload discharge plus direct wastewater treatment plant emission plus emission from sludge incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model Aluminium river 2,27E-07 kg sewer overload discharge plus direct wastewater treatment plant emission plus emission from sludge incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model Potassium, ion river kg sewer overload discharge plus direct wastewater treatment plant emission plus emission from sludge incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model Magnesium river kg sewer overload discharge plus direct wastewater treatment plant emission plus emission from sludge incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater

120 Appendix D 14/17 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 composition and treatment model Sodium, ion river kg sewer overload discharge plus direct wastewater treatment plant emission plus emission from sludge incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model BOD5, Biological Oxygen Demand groundwater, long-term kg emission from sludge incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model COD, Chemical Oxygen Demand groundwater, long-term kg emission from sludge incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model TOC, Total Organic Carbon groundwater, long-term kg emission from sludge incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model DOC, Dissolved Organic Carbon groundwater, long-term kg emission from sludge incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model Nitrate groundwater, long-term kg emission from sludge incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model Phosphate groundwater, long-term kg emission from sludge incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model Selenium groundwater, 4,06E-06 kg long-term Zinc, ion groundwater, long-term 1,31E-08 kg emission from sludge incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model Iron, ion groundwater, long-term kg emission from sludge incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater

121 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Appendix D 15/17 composition and treatment model Calcium, ion groundwater, long-term kg emission from sludge incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model Aluminium groundwater, long-term kg emission from sludge incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model Magnesium groundwater, long-term kg emission from sludge incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model Heat, waste river 17,43814 MJ direct wastewater treatment plant emission plus emission from sludge incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model Phosphate groundwater kg emission from sludge spreading. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model Emissions to soil Carbon agricultural kg emission from sludge Selenium agricultural 3,81E-06 kg spreading. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model Zinc agricultural 5,34E-07 kg emission from sludge spreading. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model Iron agricultural kg emission from sludge spreading. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model Calcium agricultural kg emission from sludge spreading. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model

122 Appendix D 16/17 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Aluminium agricultural kg emission from sludge spreading. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model Magnesium agricultural kg emission from sludge spreading. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model Final waste flows Non material emissions Social issues Economic issues Waste to treatment Process-specific burdens, municipal waste incineration/ch U Process-specific burdens, slag compartment/ch U Process-specific burdens, residual material landfill/ch U Disposal, cement, hydrated, 0% water, to residual material landfill/ch U Disposal, plastics, mixture, 15.3% water, 1, kg burden from sludge incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model kg burden from sludge incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model kg burden from sludge incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model kg burden from sludge incineration. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model kg direct wastewater

123 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Appendix D 17/17 to municipal incineration/ch U Disposal, paper, 11.2% water, to municipal incineration/ch U treatment plant burden. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model kg direct wastewater treatment plant burden. Uncertainty calculated from wastewater composition and treatment model

124

125 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Appendix E 1/8 E. Characterised values LCIA Introduction In the following Tables 17 to 23 the characterised environmental profile is given for each system studied. It shows the total result for a system and the contributions of the several sub-systems.

126 Appendix E 2/8 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 MSWI (reference) Table 17. Characterised values for the MSWI (reference) system. Impact Unit Total Collection Energy recovery Incineration ADP kg Sb eq -5,0E+00 3,4E-01-5,5E+00 1,2E-01 AP kg SO2 eq -3,9E-01 2,3E-01-8,8E-01 2,6E-01 EP kg PO4--- eq -8,4E-02 4,7E-02-2,0E-01 6,4E-02 GWP kg CO2 eq -2,0E+02 5,4E+01-7,0E+02 4,4E+02 ODP kg CFC-11 eq -2,2E-05 7,9E-06-3,2E-05 1,9E-06 HTP kg 1,4-DB eq 1,4E+01 8,5E+00-5,2E+01 5,7E+01 FAETP kg 1,4-DB eq 3,3E+00 2,9E-01-1,0E+00 4,0E+00 MAETP kg 1,4-DB eq 1,4E+04 9,6E+02-5,1E+03 1,8E+04 TETP kg 1,4-DB eq -1,1E-01 2,0E-02-2,6E-01 1,3E-01 POCP kg C2H4 eq 6,4E-02 9,9E-02-9,5E-02 6,0E-02 LC m2a -5,6E+00 3,0E-02-5,8E+00 2,0E-01 LU kg C deficit -5,6E+01 2,5E-01-5,8E+01 2,0E+00 NonRenFos MJ -9,1E+03 7,7E+02-1,0E+04 2,4E+02 NonRenNucl MJ -1,0E+03 1,0E+01-1,1E+03 4,5E+01 NonRenBiom MJ 9,9E-05 1,7E-04-1,2E-04 4,7E-05 RenBiom MJ -3,0E+02 1,4E+00-3,0E+02 1,4E+00 RenWSG MJ -8,1E+01 4,1E-01-8,2E+01 8,1E-01 RenHydro MJ -2,6E+01 9,3E-01-3,2E+01 5,7E+00 Water m3-1,2e+01 4,3E-01-1,4E+01 1,5E+00

127 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Appendix E 3/8 Separate kerbside collection Table 18. Characterised values for the separate kerbside collection system. Impact Unit Total Import RDF MSWI Consumer Collection Recovered materials/fuels Recycling ADP kg Sb eq -5,4E+00-1,2E+00-3,8E+00 7,9E-02 9,8E-02-7,1E-01 1,1E-01 AP kg SO2 eq -1,0E+00-9,3E-02-3,0E-01 2,0E-02 5,5E-02-7,4E-01 3,2E-02 EP kg PO4--- eq -2,7E-01-1,5E-01-6,4E-02 8,4E-02 1,1E-02-1,7E-01 2,0E-02 GWP kg CO2 eq -2,8E+02-1,0E+02-1,5E+02 1,0E+01 1,5E+01-1,6E+02 1,2E+02 ODP kg CFC-11 eq -2,2E-05-5,6E-06-1,7E-05 8,1E-07 2,0E-06-4,2E-06 1,7E-06 HTP kg 1,4-DB eq 5,2E+00 4,4E+00 1,0E+01 1,5E+00 1,9E+00-1,4E+01 1,5E+00 FAETP kg 1,4-DB eq 1,5E+00-3,9E-01 2,5E+00 5,2E-02 8,2E-02-8,1E-01 4,0E-02 MAETP kg 1,4-DB eq 5,8E+03-1,2E+03 1,1E+04 3,8E+02 2,6E+02-4,7E+03 2,4E+02 TETP kg 1,4-DB eq -3,1E-01-1,8E-02-8,2E-02 6,2E-03 6,0E-03-2,4E-01 1,5E-02 POCP kg C2H4 eq -2,5E-02-3,1E-02 4,8E-02 2,0E-03 2,1E-02-6,9E-02 3,7E-03 LC m2a -8,6E+01-1,7E+00-4,3E+00 8,7E-02 4,7E-02-8,0E+01 5,7E-02 LU kg C deficit -1,3E+03-1,7E+01-4,2E+01 7,0E-01 1,0E-01-1,2E+03 9,9E-01 NonRenFos MJ -9,7E+03-2,2E+03-6,9E+03 1,5E+02 2,2E+02-1,2E+03 2,1E+02 NonRenNucl MJ -1,2E+03-2,5E+02-7,7E+02 2,4E+01 4,6E+00-2,0E+02 2,3E+01 NonRenBiom MJ 2,2E-04 8,3E-06 7,5E-05 1,8E-06 8,9E-05-1,9E-03 2,0E-03 RenBiom MJ -5,6E+03-7,2E+01-2,3E+02 3,9E+00 7,8E-01-5,3E+03 9,1E-01 RenWSG MJ -8,3E+01-1,9E+01-6,2E+01 1,0E+00 1,1E-01-3,8E+00 9,7E-01 RenHydro MJ -4,6E+01-8,3E+00-1,9E+01 2,3E+00 4,7E-01-2,3E+01 1,9E+00 Water m3-1,8e+01-2,7e+00-8,8e+00 1,1E+00 1,3E-01-9,3E+00 1,2E+00

128 Appendix E 4/8 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Separate drop off with diftar Table 19. Characterised values for the separate drop-off with diftar system. Impact Unit Total Import RDF MSWI Consumer Collection Recovered materials/fuels Recycling ADP kg Sb eq -5,5E+00-1,2E+00-3,8E+00 4,9E-02 4,9E-02-7,3E-01 1,1E-01 AP kg SO2 eq -1,1E+00-9,5E-02-2,9E-01 1,3E-02 2,3E-02-7,6E-01 3,3E-02 EP kg PO4--- eq -3,2E-01-1,6E-01-6,3E-02 5,3E-02 4,7E-03-1,8E-01 2,2E-02 GWP kg CO2 eq -2,9E+02-1,1E+02-1,5E+02 6,5E+00 7,7E+00-1,7E+02 1,2E+02 ODP kg CFC-11 eq -2,3E-05-5,8E-06-1,7E-05 5,0E-07 1,1E-06-4,3E-06 1,7E-06 HTP kg 1,4-DB eq 3,2E+00 4,5E+00 1,0E+01 9,3E-01 7,1E-01-1,5E+01 1,5E+00 FAETP kg 1,4-DB eq 1,4E+00-4,0E-01 2,5E+00 3,2E-02 5,0E-02-8,3E-01 4,0E-02 MAETP kg 1,4-DB eq 5,3E+03-1,2E+03 1,1E+04 2,4E+02 1,5E+02-4,8E+03 2,5E+02 TETP kg 1,4-DB eq -3,2E-01-1,8E-02-8,1E-02 3,9E-03 3,9E-03-2,4E-01 1,5E-02 POCP kg C2H4 eq -4,6E-02-3,2E-02 4,8E-02 1,3E-03 3,8E-03-7,1E-02 3,8E-03 LC m2a -8,8E+01-1,8E+00-4,2E+00 5,4E-02 6,9E-03-8,2E+01 5,9E-02 LU kg C deficit -1,3E+03-1,8E+01-4,2E+01 4,3E-01 5,8E-02-1,2E+03 1,0E+00 NonRenFos MJ -9,8E+03-2,2E+03-6,8E+03 9,2E+01 1,1E+02-1,2E+03 2,2E+02 NonRenNucl MJ -1,2E+03-2,6E+02-7,6E+02 1,5E+01 1,9E+00-2,1E+02 2,4E+01 NonRenBiom MJ 1,6E-04 8,5E-06 7,4E-05 1,1E-06 2,4E-05-2,0E-03 2,0E-03 RenBiom MJ -5,8E+03-7,4E+01-2,3E+02 2,4E+00 3,1E-01-5,5E+03 9,3E-01 RenWSG MJ -8,3E+01-2,0E+01-6,1E+01 6,4E-01 8,9E-02-3,9E+00 9,9E-01 RenHydro MJ -4,8E+01-8,5E+00-1,9E+01 1,4E+00 1,4E-01-2,4E+01 1,9E+00 Water m3-1,9e+01-2,7e+00-8,7e+00 7,1E-01 9,2E-02-9,6E+00 1,2E+00

129 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Appendix E 5/8 Separate drop off no diftar Table 20. Characterised values for separate collection with no diftar system. Impact Unit Total Import RDF MSWI Consumer Collection Recovered materials/fuels Recycling ADP kg Sb eq -5,1E+00-3,4E-01-4,7E+00 3,7E-02 1,4E-02-2,0E-01 3,1E-02 AP kg SO2 eq -5,7E-01-2,6E-02-3,6E-01 9,4E-03 6,9E-03-2,1E-01 9,1E-03 EP kg PO4--- eq -1,2E-01-4,3E-02-7,9E-02 3,9E-02 1,4E-03-4,8E-02 5,1E-03 GWP kg CO2 eq -2,2E+02-2,9E+01-1,8E+02 4,8E+00 2,3E+00-4,5E+01 3,2E+01 ODP kg CFC-11 eq -2,2E-05-1,6E-06-2,1E-05 3,7E-07 3,2E-07-1,2E-06 4,8E-07 HTP kg 1,4-DB eq 1,1E+01 1,2E+00 1,3E+01 6,9E-01 2,1E-01-4,0E+00 4,1E-01 FAETP kg 1,4-DB eq 2,8E+00-1,1E-01 3,1E+00 2,4E-02 1,5E-02-2,3E-01 1,1E-02 MAETP kg 1,4-DB eq 1,2E+04-3,3E+02 1,3E+04 1,8E+02 4,3E+01-1,3E+03 6,6E+01 TETP kg 1,4-DB eq -1,6E-01-5,0E-03-1,0E-01 2,9E-03 1,1E-03-6,6E-02 4,2E-03 POCP kg C2H4 eq 3,4E-02-8,8E-03 5,9E-02 9,3E-04 1,1E-03-1,9E-02 1,1E-03 LC m2a -2,8E+01-4,8E-01-5,2E+00 4,0E-02 2,0E-03-2,2E+01 1,6E-02 LU kg C deficit -3,9E+02-4,9E+00-5,2E+01 3,2E-01 1,7E-02-3,4E+02 2,8E-01 NonRenFos MJ -9,2E+03-6,1E+02-8,4E+03 6,8E+01 3,2E+01-3,3E+02 6,0E+01 NonRenNucl MJ -1,0E+03-7,1E+01-9,4E+02 1,1E+01 5,6E-01-5,6E+01 6,5E+00 NonRenBiom MJ 1,2E-04 2,3E-06 9,2E-05 8,4E-07 6,9E-06-5,4E-04 5,6E-04 RenBiom MJ -1,8E+03-2,0E+01-2,8E+02 1,8E+00 9,2E-02-1,5E+03 2,5E-01 RenWSG MJ -8,1E+01-5,4E+00-7,6E+01 4,8E-01 2,6E-02-1,1E+00 2,7E-01 RenHydro MJ -3,1E+01-2,3E+00-2,4E+01 1,1E+00 4,2E-02-6,4E+00 5,2E-01 Water m3-1,3e+01-7,5e-01-1,1e+01 5,3E-01 2,7E-02-2,6E+00 3,3E-01

130 Appendix E 6/8 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Co collection with plastic as carrier Table 21. Characterised values for the co-collection with plastic as carrier system. Impact Unit Total Import RDF MSWI Consumer Collection Sorting Quality loss plastic Recovered materials/fuels Recycling ADP kg Sb eq -4,7E+00-1,6E+00-2,3E+00 1,6E-01 1,9E-01-1,2E+00 8,0E-01-8,8E-01 1,4E-01 AP kg SO2 eq -9,5E-01-1,2E-01-1,8E-01 4,2E-02 1,2E-01-1,3E-01 1,9E-01-9,2E-01 4,1E-02 EP kg PO4--- eq -2,5E-01-2,1E-01-3,9E-02 1,7E-01 2,5E-02-2,8E-02 1,6E-02-2,1E-01 2,5E-02 GWP kg CO2 eq -2,2E+02-1,4E+02-9,1E+01 2,1E+01 3,0E+01-4,4E+01 5,5E+01-2,0E+02 1,4E+02 ODP kg CFC-11 eq -2,0E-05-7,6E-06-1,0E-05 1,7E-06 4,3E-06-6,1E-06 1,2E-06-5,1E-06 2,2E-06 HTP kg 1,4-DB eq 1,3E+01 6,0E+00 6,2E+00 3,1E+00 4,6E+00 2,1E+00 6,7E+00-1,8E+01 1,9E+00 FAETP kg 1,4-DB eq 1,4E+00-5,2E-01 1,5E+00 1,1E-01 1,6E-01 8,2E-01 2,8E-01-1,0E+00 5,3E-02 MAETP kg 1,4-DB eq 5,8E+03-1,6E+03 6,5E+03 7,9E+02 5,3E+02 3,5E+03 1,5E+03-5,8E+03 3,1E+02 TETP kg 1,4-DB eq -2,8E-01-2,4E-02-5,0E-02 1,3E-02 1,1E-02-2,5E-02 6,7E-02-2,9E-01 1,9E-02 POCP kg C2H4 eq 1,6E-02-4,2E-02 2,9E-02 4,1E-03 5,3E-02-5,4E-03 5,7E-02-8,5E-02 4,9E-03 LC m2a -1,0E+02-2,3E+00-2,6E+00 1,8E-01 1,8E-02-1,3E+00 4,4E-02-9,8E+01 7,1E-02 LU kg C deficit -1,5E+03-2,3E+01-2,6E+01 1,4E+00 1,5E-01-1,3E+01 4,5E-01-1,5E+03 1,2E+00 NonRenFos MJ -8,1E+03-2,9E+03-4,2E+03 3,0E+02 4,2E+02-2,2E+03 1,7E+03-1,4E+03 2,7E+02 NonRenNucl MJ -1,1E+03-3,4E+02-4,6E+02 4,9E+01 6,0E+00-2,4E+02 1,5E+02-2,5E+02 2,9E+01 NonRenBiom MJ 2,4E-04 1,1E-05 4,5E-05 3,7E-06 9,3E-05 8,5E-06 1,4E-05-2,4E-03 2,5E-03 RenBiom MJ -6,9E+03-9,7E+01-1,4E+02 8,1E+00 8,2E-01-7,2E+01 6,5E+00-6,6E+03 1,1E+00 RenWSG MJ -8,3E+01-2,6E+01-3,7E+01 2,1E+00 2,4E-01-1,9E+01 9,7E-01-4,7E+00 1,2E+00 RenHydro MJ -3,5E+01-1,1E+01-1,2E+01 4,7E+00 5,1E-01-6,1E+00 1,5E+01-2,8E+01 2,3E+00 Water m3-1,8e+01-3,6e+00-5,3e+00 2,4E+00 2,6E-01-2,8E+00 1,6E+00-1,2E+01 1,4E+00

131 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Appendix E 7/8 Co collection with paper as carrier Table 22. Characterised values for the co-collection with paper as carrier system. Impact Unit Import RDF MSWI Consumer Collection Sorting Quality loss paper Recovered materials/fuels Recycling ADP kg Sb eq -7,8E-01-3,7E+00 8,6E-02 9,9E-02-5,6E-01 2,1E-03-4,2E-01 6,7E-02 AP kg SO2 eq -6,0E-02-2,9E-01 2,2E-02 6,5E-02-5,8E-02 2,5E-03-4,4E-01 2,0E-02 EP kg PO4--- eq -1,0E-01-6,3E-02 9,2E-02 1,3E-02-1,3E-02 5,1E-04-1,0E-01 1,2E-02 GWP kg CO2 eq -6,7E+01-1,5E+02 1,1E+01 1,6E+01-2,0E+01 2,8E-01-9,5E+01 6,8E+01 kg CFC-11 ODP eq -3,7E-06-1,6E-05 8,8E-07 2,3E-06-2,8E-06 2,7E-08-2,5E-06 1,0E-06 HTP kg 1,4-DB eq 2,9E+00 1,0E+01 1,6E+00 2,5E+00 9,7E-01 8,3E-02-8,5E+00 8,8E-01 FAETP kg 1,4-DB eq -2,5E-01 2,4E+00 5,6E-02 8,3E-02 3,8E-01 4,8E-03-4,8E-01 2,5E-02 MAETP kg 1,4-DB eq -7,7E+02 1,1E+04 4,2E+02 2,8E+02 1,6E+03 2,6E+01-2,8E+03 1,4E+02 TETP kg 1,4-DB eq -1,2E-02-8,1E-02 6,8E-03 5,9E-03-1,2E-02 1,4E-03-1,4E-01 8,9E-03 POCP kg C2H4 eq -2,0E-02 4,8E-02 2,2E-03 2,9E-02-2,6E-03 3,9E-04-4,1E-02 2,3E-03 LC m2a -1,1E+00-4,2E+00 9,5E-02 8,2E-03-6,1E-01 8,0E+00-4,7E+01 3,4E-02 LU kg C deficit -1,1E+01-4,2E+01 7,6E-01 6,8E-02-5,8E+00 8,3E+01-7,1E+02 5,9E-01 NonRenFos MJ -1,4E+03-6,8E+03 1,6E+02 2,2E+02-1,0E+03 4,0E+00-6,9E+02 1,3E+02 NonRenNucl MJ -1,6E+02-7,5E+02 2,6E+01 2,9E+00-1,1E+02 1,2E+00-1,2E+02 1,4E+01 NonRenBiom MJ 5,4E-06 7,4E-05 2,0E-06 4,9E-05 3,9E-06 1,2E-05-1,1E-03 1,2E-03 RenBiom MJ -4,7E+01-2,2E+02 4,3E+00 3,7E-01-3,3E+01 5,4E+02-3,2E+03 5,4E-01 RenWSG MJ -1,3E+01-6,1E+01 1,1E+00 1,1E-01-8,9E+00 2,3E-02-2,2E+00 5,7E-01 RenHydro MJ -5,4E+00-1,9E+01 2,5E+00 2,6E-01-2,8E+00 1,6E-01-1,4E+01 1,1E+00 Water m3-1,7e+00-8,7e+00 1,2E+00 1,2E-01-1,3E+00 5,7E-02-5,5E+00 6,9E-01

132 Appendix E 8/8 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Post separation Table 23. Characterised values for the post separation system. Impact Unit Total Import RDF Collection Postseparation Recovered materials/fuels Recovered energy Recycling Energy recovery ADP kg Sb eq -1,0E+01-5,1E+00 4,5E-01 5,1E-02-1,8E+00-4,1E+00 2,7E-01 4,9E-02 AP kg SO2 eq -2,3E+00-4,2E-01 2,7E-01 2,0E-02-1,8E+00-5,4E-01 7,9E-02 1,1E-01 EP kg PO4--- eq -7,8E-01-4,0E-01 5,5E-02 4,3E-03-4,2E-01-1,0E-01 5,6E-02 2,6E-02 GWP kg CO2 eq -8,6E+02-5,0E+02 7,0E+01 6,8E+00-4,0E+02-5,1E+02 2,8E+02 1,8E+02 kg CFC-11 ODP eq -7,9E-05-4,4E-05 1,0E-05 3,8E-07-1,0E-05-4,0E-05 4,1E-06 7,7E-07 HTP kg 1,4-DB eq -5,6E+01-1,5E+01 9,6E+00 1,3E+00-3,6E+01-4,3E+01 3,7E+00 2,3E+01 FAETP kg 1,4-DB eq -1,3E+00-9,8E-01 4,0E-01 1,8E-02-2,0E+00-4,8E-01 9,7E-02 1,7E+00 MAETP kg 1,4-DB eq -7,5E+03-3,1E+03 1,3E+03 7,7E+01-1,2E+04-2,3E+03 6,1E+02 7,5E+03 TETP kg 1,4-DB eq -6,5E-01-6,4E-02 2,9E-02 2,7E-03-5,8E-01-1,3E-01 3,7E-02 5,5E-02 POCP kg C2H4 eq -2,4E-01-1,3E-01 1,1E-01 3,0E-03-1,7E-01-8,7E-02 9,0E-03 2,4E-02 LC m2a -2,0E+02-4,2E+00 3,2E-02 5,0E-02-2,0E+02-2,3E+00 1,4E-01 8,0E-02 LU kg C deficit -3,0E+03-4,2E+01 2,6E-01 5,0E-01-3,0E+03-2,3E+01 2,4E+00 8,4E-01 NonRenFos MJ -1,9E+04-9,7E+03 1,0E+03 9,6E+01-2,9E+03-8,0E+03 5,2E+02 9,8E+01 NonRenNucl MJ -1,6E+03-6,8E+02 1,2E+01 9,1E+00-5,0E+02-4,9E+02 5,8E+01 1,8E+01 NonRenBiom MJ 3,4E-04 2,9E-05 2,2E-04 6,5E-06-4,8E-03-5,6E-05 4,9E-03 1,9E-05 RenBiom MJ -1,3E+04-1,7E+02 1,4E+00 2,6E+00-1,3E+04-1,2E+02 2,2E+00 5,5E-01 RenWSG MJ -8,6E+01-4,7E+01 4,4E-01 7,0E-01-9,3E+00-3,4E+01 2,4E+00 3,3E-01 RenHydro MJ -1,1E+02-3,4E+01 1,2E+00 2,6E-01-5,7E+01-2,5E+01 4,8E+00 2,3E+00 Water m3-3,1e+01-6,6e+00 4,7E-01 1,2E-01-2,3E+01-5,6E+00 2,9E+00 6,2E-01

133 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Appendix F 1/14 F. Life Cycle Impact Assessment In chapter 5 of the main report the results from the LCIA are presented. In the main report, the relative contributions of the different process groups are presented only in graphical form. In this appendix the relative contributions are also shown in tabular form. For the separate collection systems, only the weighted average of the three (kerbside, drop-off with diftar and drop-off with no diftar) is presented. In this appendix the results for the individual systems are given. Reference scenario Table 24 The phases for the reference (MSWI) scenario having a contribution of 20% or more and those with a contribution of -20% or less Category Collection Energy recovery Incineration ADP 6% -100% 2% AP 26% -100% 30% EP 24% -100% 33% GWP 8% -100% 64% ODP 25% -100% 6% HTP 13% -79% 87% FAETP 7% -24% 93% MAETP 5% -26% 95% TETP 8% -100% 51% POCP 63% -60% 37% LC 1% -100% 3% Non CML category LU 0% -100% 4% NonRenFos 8% -100% 2% NonRenNucl 1% -100% 4% NonRenBiom 78% -55% 22% RenBiom 0% -100% 0% RenWSG 0% -100% 1% RenHydro 3% -100% 18% Water 3% -100% 11% Separate kerbside collection Figure 49 and Table 25 show that the system of separate collection using a kerbside collection system shows net environmental benefits as well as burdens. The benefits are again for an important part due recovered materials and fuels, mainly the avoided production of sulphate pulp, the avoided fuels and materials for the cement kiln contribute to a lesser part. The reference scenario has a relatively small role in these results, because of the relatively high collection rates achieved for this system (24 %, see also Table 5). However, the incineration of the beverage

134 Appendix F 2/14 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 cartons and that of the imported RDF in the MSWI still show considerable contributions to the environmental profile. Figure 49 The relative contribution to the characterised result per impact category of the processes for separate collection, kerbside. The net shadow cost of the system of separate collection at kerbside is -28 (see also ). The LC of recovered materials is a large contributor to this net result with - 8,1, mainly due to avoided pulp production (see also Figure 50). Another important contribution is that of GWP ( -14), mainly caused by the recovered materials and fuels, MSWI and RDF.

135 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Appendix F 3/14 Figure 50 The environmental impact expressed as shadow costs for the separate collection, kerbside collection system. The bars show the contribution per phase and of the total of the system.

136 Category Import RDF MSWI Consum er Collectio n Recovere d materials /fuels Recyclin g Appendix F 4/14 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Table 25 The phases for the separate collection, kerbside having a contribution of 20% or more and those with a contribution of -20% or less. ADP -21% -67% 1% 2% -12% 2% AP -8% -26% 2% 5% -66% 3% EP -40% -16% 22% 3% -44% 5% GWP -25% -36% 3% 4% -39% 28% ODP -21% -63% 3% 8% -16% 6% HTP 23% 53% 8% 10% -73% 8% FAETP -15% 94% 2% 3% -31% 1% MAETP -10% 92% 3% 2% -40% 2% TETP -5% -24% 2% 2% -70% 4% POCP -31% 48% 2% 21% -69% 4% LC -2% -5% 0% 0% -93% 0% Non CML category LU -1% -3% 0% 0% -95% 0% NonRenFos -21% -67% 1% 2% -11% 2% NonRenNucl -21% -63% 2% 0% -16% 2% NonRenBiom 0% 3% 0% 4% -90% 92% RenBiom -1% -4% 0% 0% -95% 0% RenWSG -23% -73% 1% 0% -4% 1% RenHydro -16% -38% 5% 1% -45% 4% Water -13% -42% 6% 1% -45% 6% Separate drop off with diftar The phases of the system of separate collection with drop-off by the consumer and a diftar for MSW shows that the recovered materials and fuels have a clear environmental benefit (see Figure 51). This is for the largest part due to the avoided production of sulphate pulp, the avoided fuels and materials for the cement kiln contribute to a lesser part (see also ). Due to the relatively higher collection response of 25% (see ) The import and incineration of RDF from the UK has a distinct beneficial contribution to the environmental profile for a number of impact categories such as EP and POCP (see also Table 26). This is caused by the avoided emissions of landfilling of this type of waste in the UK and by the energy recovery from the RDF in the MSWI. The incineration of the RDF in the Netherlands does however also cause a burden as can be seen for the impact HTP. It has been assumed that the consumer cleans part of the beverage cartons before dropping these off (see also paragraph ). This shows to have a contribution of 13% to EP caused by the waste water treatment of the rinsing water with the rinsed out contents. The cleaning of the beverage cartons has no further considerable impacts or benefits in the environmental profile.

137 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Appendix F 5/14 Finally the recycling process itself shows having an considerable contribution to GWP. This has to do with the emissions of the plastic-aluminium foil send to the cement kiln. The incineration of the polyethylene causes the emission of fossil based carbon dioxide. Figure 51 The relative contribution to the characterised result per impact category of the processes for separate collection, drop-off diftar. The net shadow cost of the separate collection system with drop-off and diftar are -30 per ton of collected material (see Figure 52). The avoided production of primary pulp, which avoids the use of forests for wood production, determines a large part of the total shadow costs of the system. The contribution of land competition is -8,3 per ton. Another important contribution is that of avoided GWP from recovered materials/fuels, MSWI and the import of RDF ( -8,3-7,5 and -5,5 respectively). A large positive impact is caused by the incineration of plastic rejects from the recycling process ( 5,9).

138 Appendix F 6/14 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Figure 52 The environmental impact expressed as shadow costs for the separate collection, drop-off diftar system. The bars show the contribution per phase and of the total of the system.

139 Category Import RDF MSWI Consumer Collection Recovered materials/fue ls Recycling TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Appendix F 7/14 Table 26 The phases for the separate collection, drop-off diftar having a contribution of 20% or more and those with a contribution of -20% or less. ADP -21% -66% 1% 1% -13% 2% AP -8% -25% 1% 2% -66% 3% EP -40% -16% 13% 1% -44% 5% GWP -25% -35% 2% 2% -39% 28% ODP -22% -62% 2% 4% -16% 6% HTP 25% 57% 5% 4% -82% 8% FAETP -15% 95% 1% 2% -32% 2% MAETP -11% 94% 2% 1% -43% 2% TETP -5% -24% 1% 1% -71% 4% POCP -31% 47% 1% 4% -69% 4% LC -2% -5% 0% 0% -93% 0% Non CML category LU -1% -3% 0% 0% -95% 0% NonRenFos -22% -67% 1% 1% -12% 2% NonRenNucl -21% -62% 1% 0% -17% 2% NonRenBiom 0% 3% 0% 1% -93% 95% RenBiom -1% -4% 0% 0% -95% 0% RenWSG -23% -72% 1% 0% -5% 1% RenHydro -17% -38% 3% 0% -46% 4% Water -13% -41% 3% 0% -46% 6% Separate drop off no diftar It is clear from Figure 53 that the separate collection system with drop-off and nodiftar shows both environmental impacts and environmental benefits. The benefits show as negative contributions in the aforementioned figure. A number of impact categories like GWP show net benefits, while others like HTP show net environmental impacts.

140 Appendix F 8/14 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Figure 53 The relative contribution to the characterised result per impact category of the processes for separate collection, drop-off no-diftar. Not all phases in the system have considerable impacts or benefits as can be deduced from Figure 53. In Table 27 the system phases with an absolute contribution of 20% or more are shown by shading (green for negative impacts or benefits, orange for positive impacts or burdens). It is clear that the incineration of beverage cartons MSWI in this collection system is highly important; this is caused by the limited collection response of beverage cartons of 7% (see Table 5). Although the amount of beverage cartons that is withdrawn from the MSW is limited the import of RDF from the UK and its subsequent incineration (Import RDF in Table 27) still shows considerable benefit for EP. This is caused by the avoidance of landfilling of the RDF materials in the UK. The third phase with considerable benefits is the recovery of fuels and materials. This is caused on the one hand by the avoided production of sulphate pulp due to the recycling of the fibres in the beverage carton and on the other hand by the avoided use of fossil fuels for the clinker kiln due to the use of the plastics and aluminium from the beverage cartons (see also section ).

141 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Appendix F 9/14 Figure 54 The environmental impact expressed as shadow costs for the separate collection, drop-off no-diftar system. The bars show the contribution per phase and of the total of the system.

142 Category Import RDF MSWI Consumer Collection Recovered materials/fuels Recycling Appendix F 10/14 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Table 27 The phases for the separate collection, drop-off no-diftar having a contribution of 20% or more and those with a contribution of -20% or less ADP -6% -90% 1% 0% -4% 1% AP -4% -61% 2% 1% -35% 2% EP -26% -46% 23% 1% -28% 3% GWP -11% -71% 2% 1% -17% 12% ODP -7% -88% 2% 1% -5% 2% HTP 8% 83% 5% 1% -27% 3% FAETP -4% 98% 1% 0% -7% 0% MAETP -2% 98% 1% 0% -10% 0% TETP -3% -59% 2% 1% -38% 2% POCP -14% 95% 1% 2% -31% 2% LC -2% -19% 0% 0% -80% 0% Non CML category LU -1% -13% 0% 0% -86% 0% NonRenF os -6% -90% 1% 0% -4% 1% NonRenN ucl -7% -88% 1% 0% -5% 1% NonRenBi om 0% 14% 0% 1% -82% 85% RenBiom -1% -16% 0% 0% -83% 0% RenWSG -7% -92% 1% 0% -1% 0% RenHydro -7% -73% 3% 0% -20% 2% Water -5% -76% 4% 0% -18% 2% The recycling process shows for NonRenBiom a large impact, this is caused by the use of chemicals in the pulping process. These chemicals use palm oil as one of the raw materials. The use of previously forested land by the expanding oil palm plantations is the root of this impact. In the environmental impact expressed as shadow costs (see Figure 54) it is clear that LC and GWP have a large contribution to the net negative shadow costs of The contribution of LC is related to recycling of the cardboard ( -23), while for GWP this is related to the energy recovery in the MSWI ( -9,2). The positive shadow costs of the recycling process (GWP) is mainly caused by the disposal of the plastic-aluminum rejects ( 1,6) and HTP and MAETP from the MSWI ( 1,1 and 1,3 respectively).

143 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Appendix F 11/14 Co collection with plastic as carrier Table 28 The phases for the co-collection with plastic as carrier having a contribution of 20% or more and those with a contribution of -20% or less. Category Import RDF MSWI Consumer Collection Sorting Quality loss plastic Recovered materials/fuels Recycling ADP -27% -38% 3% 3% -20% 13% -15% 2% AP -9% -13% 3% 9% -9% 14% -68% 3% EP -43% -8% 36% 5% -6% 3% -43% 5% GWP -29% -19% 5% 6% -9% 12% -42% 30% ODP -26% -35% 6% 15% -21% 4% -18% 7% HTP 19% 20% 10% 15% 7% 22% -58% 6% FAETP -18% 52% 4% 5% 28% 10% -34% 2% MAETP -12% 50% 6% 4% 27% 11% -44% 2% TETP -6% -13% 3% 3% -6% 17% -75% 5% POCP -28% 20% 3% 36% -4% 39% -57% 3% LC -2% -2% 0% 0% -1% 0% -94% 0% Non CML category LU -2% -2% 0% 0% -1% 0% -96% 0% NonRenFos -27% -39% 3% 4% -21% 16% -13% 3% NonRenNucl -26% -36% 4% 0% -19% 11% -19% 2% NonRenBiom 0% 2% 0% 4% 0% 1% -91% 93% RenBiom -1% -2% 0% 0% -1% 0% -96% 0% RenWSG -30% -43% 2% 0% -22% 1% -5% 1% RenHydro -19% -21% 8% 1% -11% 26% -49% 4% Water -15% -23% 10% 1% -12% 7% -50% 6%

144 Appendix F 12/14 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Co collection with paper and board as carrier Table 29 The phases for the co-collection with paper as carrier having a contribution of 20% or more and those with a contribution of -20% or less. Category Import RDF MSWI Consumer Collection Sorting Quality loss paper Recovered materials/fuels Recycling ADP -14% -68% 2% 2% -10% 0% -8% 1% AP -7% -34% 3% 8% -7% 0% -52% 2% EP -36% -23% 33% 5% -5% 0% -36% 4% GWP -20% -45% 3% 5% -6% 0% -29% 21% ODP -14% -65% 3% 9% -11% 0% -10% 4% HTP 15% 53% 9% 13% 5% 0% -45% 5% FAETP -8% 82% 2% 3% 13% 0% -16% 1% MAETP -6% 81% 3% 2% 12% 0% -21% 1% TETP -5% -33% 3% 2% -5% 1% -57% 4% POCP -25% 59% 3% 35% -3% 0% -50% 3% LC -2% -8% 0% 0% -1% 15% -89% 0% Non CML category LU -1% -5% 0% 0% -1% 11% -92% 0% NonRenFos -14% -68% 2% 2% -10% 0% -7% 1% NonRenNucl -14% -66% 2% 0% -10% 0% -10% 1% NonRenBiom 0% 6% 0% 4% 0% 1% -87% 89% RenBiom -1% -6% 0% 0% -1% 15% -91% 0% RenWSG -15% -72% 1% 0% -11% 0% -3% 1% RenHydro -13% -47% 6% 1% -7% 0% -33% 3% Water -10% -50% 7% 1% -8% 0% -32% 4%

145 Import RDF Collection Post-separation Recovered materials/fuels Recovered energy Recycling Energy recovery TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Appendix F 13/14 Post separation Table 30 The phases for the post-separation with plastic as carrier with diftar having a contribution of 20% or more and those with a contribution of -20% or less Category ADP -46% 4% 0% -16% -38% 2% 0% AP -15% 10% 1% -66% -19% 3% 4% EP -43% 6% 0% -46% -11% 6% 3% GWP -36% 5% 0% -28% -36% 20% 13% ODP -47% 11% 0% -11% -42% 4% 1% HTP -16% 10% 1% -38% -46% 4% 25% FAETP -28% 11% 1% -58% -14% 3% 48% MAETP -18% 8% 0% -68% -14% 4% 44% TETP -8% 4% 0% -75% -17% 5% 7% POCP -33% 28% 1% -44% -23% 2% 6% LC -2% 0% 0% -97% -1% 0% 0% Non CML category LU -1% 0% 0% -98% -1% 0% 0% NonRenFos -47% 5% 0% -14% -39% 3% 0% NonRenNucl -41% 1% 1% -30% -29% 4% 1% NonRenBiom 1% 4% 0% -92% -1% 95% 0% RenBiom -1% 0% 0% -98% -1% 0% 0% RenWSG -52% 0% 1% -10% -37% 3% 0% RenHydro -29% 1% 0% -49% -22% 4% 2% Water -19% 1% 0% -65% -16% 8% 2%

146 MSWI (reference) Separate kerbside Drop-off diftar Drop-off nodiftar Co-collect plastic Co-collect paper & board Post-separation Appendix F 14/14 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Comparison Table 31 Comparison of the relative contribution per impact category of each of the systems. The colours indicate whether the impact is high or low. Category ADP -49% -54% -54% -51% -47% -52% -100% AP -17% -44% -47% -25% -41% -32% -100% EP -11% -35% -41% -16% -32% -20% -100% GWP -23% -32% -34% -25% -26% -27% -100% ODP -28% -28% -29% -28% -25% -27% -100% HTP 24% 9% 6% 20% 23% 19% -100% FAETP 100% 45% 41% 85% 43% 69% -40% MAETP 100% 41% 37% 84% 41% 67% -53% TETP -17% -47% -49% -25% -43% -34% -100% POCP 26% -11% -19% 14% 6% 7% -100% LC -3% -42% -43% -14% -51% -22% -100% Non CML category LU -2% -42% -43% -13% -51% -23% -100% NonRenFos -48% -51% -52% -49% -43% -50% -100% NonRenNucl -65% -75% -76% -67% -68% -71% -100% NonRenBiom 29% 65% 46% 34% 69% 51% 100% RenBiom -2% -42% -43% -13% -51% -22% -100% RenWSG -94% -96% -96% -94% -96% -96% -100% RenHydro -24% -43% -45% -29% -33% -34% -100% Water -37% -59% -61% -43% -57% -48% -100%

147 MSWI (reference) Separate kerbside Drop-off diftar Drop-off no-diftar Co-collect plastic Co-collect paper & board Postseparation TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Appendix G 1/13 G. Sensitivity Analysis This appendix accompanies chapter 6 of the main report. In the main report the sensitivity analyses for land competition, the impact assessment method and the loss of carrier material are presented. In this appendix some additional results are included. Also included in this appendix are the sensitivity analyses for state-of-theart recycling, the inclusion of long term emissions and the impact assessment of biogenic CO 2 emissions. ReCiPe mid points Table 32 Relative contribution of each collection system per impact category. The absolute largest score per impact category has been set to 100%. The higher the environmental impact the more orange a cell is shaded, the most green cells show the best score. Category CC -22% -32% -34% -25% -27% -27% -100% OD -28% -28% -30% -28% -26% -27% -100% Htox 97% 93% 91% 96% 100% 96% 78% POF 3% -32% -37% -7% -31% -16% -100% PM -4% -41% -43% -15% -46% -25% -100% IR -56% -69% -70% -60% -68% -64% -100% Tacid -15% -43% -46% -23% -41% -30% -100% Feutro -67% -63% -70% -63% -46% -57% -100% Meutro 0% -24% -31% -4% -19% -8% -100% Tecotox -94% -97% -98% -95% -92% -95% -100% Fecotox 67% 75% 74% 69% 100% 76% 87% Mecotox 100% 58% 52% 88% 96% 84% 3% ALO -2% -42% -43% -13% -51% -22% -100% ULO -45% -67% -68% -51% -73% -58% -100% NLT -84% -9% -7% -63% 20% -32% 100% Wdepl -11% -38% -42% -17% -35% -22% -100% Mdepl -21% -52% -53% -29% 33% 0% -100% Fdepl -48% -51% -52% -49% -43% -50% -100%

148 Impact MSWI (reference) Separate kerbside Drop-off diftar Drop-off no-diftar Co-collect plastic Co-collect paper & board Post-separation Appendix G 2/13 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Table 33 Shadow cost (in euro) for the collection systems per impact category of ReCiPe. Figures in bold have a contribution of 20% or more. CC -4,98-7,22-7,57-5,61-6,06-6,11-22,37 OD Htox POF ,42 PM -4,47-43,24-45,24-15,49-48,60-26,62-104,72 IR -1,09-1,33-1,35-1,15-1,32-1,23-1,93 Tacid ,43 Feutro Meutro ,50-3, , Tecotox Fecotox Mecotox ALO ,86-8,06-2,50-9,61-4,07-18,79 ULO NLT Wdepl -1,17-4,02-4,50-1,78-3,69-2, Mdepl Fdepl Total -12,14-67,21-71,14-27,23-72,22-41,74-171,89

149 MSWI (reference) Separate kerbside Drop-off diftar Drop-off no-diftar Co-coll plastic Co-coll plastic high Co-coll plastic low Co-coll paper Co-coll paper high Co-coll paper low Postseparation TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Appendix G 3/13 Quality loss carrier Table 34 Relative contribution of each collection system per impact category. The absolute largest score per impact category has been set to 100%. The higher the environmental impact the more orange a cell is shaded, the most green cells show the best score. Category ADP -49% -54% -54% -51% -47% -28% -49% -52% -63% -54% -100% AP -17% -44% -47% -25% -41% -16% -43% -32% -37% -33% -100% EP -11% -35% -41% -16% -32% -28% -32% -20% -24% -21% -100% GWP -23% -32% -34% -25% -26% 16% -23% -27% -44% -31% -100% ODP -28% -28% -29% -28% -25% -28% -27% -27% -35% -28% -100% HTP 24% 9% 6% 20% 23% 80% 25% 19% 9% 17% -100% FAETP 100% 45% 41% 85% 43% 88% 45% 69% 64% 68% -40% MAETP 100% 41% 37% 84% 41% 93% 43% 67% 62% 66% -53% TETP -17% -47% -49% -25% -43% -4% -43% -34% -39% -35% -100% POCP 26% -11% -19% 14% 6% 96% 5% 7% 6% 7% -100% LC -3% -42% -43% -14% -51% -52% -52% -22% 13% -18% -100% Non CML category LU -2% -42% -43% -13% -51% -51% -51% -23% 2% -20% -100% NonRenFos -48% -51% -52% -49% -43% -20% -45% -50% -61% -52% -100% NonRenNucl -65% -75% -76% -67% -68% -47% -71% -71% -85% -74% -100% NonRenBiom 29% 65% 46% 34% 69% 86% 70% 51% 77% 53% 100% RenBiom -2% -42% -43% -13% -51% -52% -51% -22% 14% -18% -100% RenWSG -81% -83% -83% -81% -83% -100% -87% -82% -100% -86% -86% RenHydro -24% -43% -45% -29% -33% 18% -34% -34% -39% -35% -100% Water -37% -59% -61% -43% -57% -46% -58% -48% -55% -50% -100%

150 Appendix G 4/13 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036

151 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Appendix G 5/13 State-of-the-art recycling Instead of the conventional recycling process, a state of the art (REPA) recycling process may be applied. As compared to the base case, the results do not change considerably on most indicators (see also Figure 55). This is explained largely by the relatively small contribution the recycling process has on the overall results on most indicators. Figure 55 The relative contribution to the characterised result per impact category of the collection systems. The absolute largest score per impact category has been set to 100%. When comparing the shadow costs of the different collection systems with the base case systems, it is apparent that no large differences between the base case and the REPA recycling process exists (See Figure 56 and Table 35). For the reference system, the results are identical. For the other systems, the largest difference as compared with the base case is observed for the co-collection with plastic system ( 3).

152 MSWI (reference) Separate kerbside Drop-off diftar Drop-off no-diftar Co-collect plastic Co-collect paper & board Post-separation Appendix G 6/13 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Figure 56 The environmental impact expressed as shadow costs for the alternative systems. The bars show the contribution per phase and of the total of the system. In the top half of the graph the results for the base case BASE are shown, at the lower half the results for including long term emissions. Table 35 shows the total shadow costs of the base case and of the systems using REPA recycling and their ranking. No changes occur in the ranking between the systems, which was to be expected since the influence of the recycling process on the total scores is limited. Table 35 Comparison and ranking, the green end of the colour scale has the best performance, of each system for the base case shadow costs (CML) and for the REPA recycling. Base case REPA

153 MSWI (reference) Separate kerbside Drop-off diftar Drop-off no-diftar Co-collect plastic Co-collect paper & board Post-separation TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Appendix G 7/13 Table 36 Relative contribution of each collection system per impact category. The absolute largest score per impact category has been set to 100%. The higher the environmental impact the more orange a cell is shaded, the most green cells show the best score. Category ADP -49% -53% -54% -50% -46% -51% -100% AP -17% -43% -45% -24% -39% -31% -100% EP -11% -34% -40% -16% -30% -20% -100% GWP -23% -32% -33% -25% -26% -27% -100% ODP -27% -28% -29% -27% -25% -26% -100% HTP 24% 11% 7% 20% 25% 20% -100% FAETP 100% 48% 45% 85% 47% 71% -37% MAETP 100% 45% 41% 85% 46% 70% -49% TETP -17% -45% -46% -25% -38% -31% -100% POCP 26% -9% -17% 15% 9% 9% -100% LC -3% -39% -40% -13% -46% -19% -100% Non CML category LU -2% -38% -39% -12% -46% -19% -100% NonRenFos -47% -51% -52% -48% -42% -49% -100% NonRenNucl -68% -76% -77% -70% -68% -72% -100% NonRenBiom 2% -35% -37% -8% -43% -18% -100% RenBiom -2% -38% -39% -13% -46% -18% -100% RenWSG -98% -98% -98% -98% -97% -98% -100% RenHydro -25% -41% -43% -29% -29% -33% -100% Water -39% -57% -59% -43% -53% -47% -100% Long term emissions In comparison with the base case (see Figure 31) the impact categories HTP, FAETP and MAETP show larger environmental burdens when including the long term emissions in the LCIA (see Figure 57). Furthermore, the differences per alternative system seem to be less outspoken than was for the base case.

154 MSWI (reference) Separate kerbside Drop-off diftar Drop-off nodiftar Co-collect plastic Co-collect paper & board Post-separation Appendix G 8/13 TNO report TNO 2013 R12036 Figure 57 The relative contribution to the characterised result per impact category of the collection systems. The absolute largest score per impact category has been set to 100%. The relative high scores for HTP, FAETP and MAETP also can be seen by the orange colours in Table 37. Table 37 Relative contribution of each collection system per impact category. The absolute largest score per impact category has been set to 100%. The higher the environmental impact the more orange a cell is shaded, the most green cells show the best score. Category ADP -49% -54% -54% -51% -47% -52% -100% AP -17% -44% -47% -25% -41% -32% -100% EP -21% -48% -51% -28% -52% -36% -100% GWP -23% -32% -34% -25% -26% -27% -100% ODP -28% -28% -29% -28% -25% -27% -100% HTP 100% 74% 72% 93% 75% 86% 12% FAETP 100% 81% 81% 95% 81% 90% 52% MAETP 100% 64% 63% 90% 60% 80% 9% TETP -14% -47% -48% -23% -51% -34% -100% POCP 26% -11% -19% 14% 6% 7% -100% LC -3% -42% -43% -14% -51% -22% -100%