Business Park E.T.V.

Laan van Westenenk 501

Postbus 342
7300 AH Apeldoorn
The Netherlands
TNO-report
www.mep.tno.nl
R 2000/119 T +31 55 549 34 93
F +31 55 541 98 37
Eco-efficiency of recovery scenarios info@mep.tno.nl
of plastic packaging

Date July 2001

Authors P.G. Eggels

A.M.M. Ansems
B.L. van der Ven

Order no. 31915

Keywords - Plastic Packaging

- Recovery scenarios
- Eco-efficiency
- Life Cycle Analysis
- Cost Analysis

Intended for Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe (APME)

Box 5
B-1160 Brussels
Belgium

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 Standard Conditions for Research Instructions given 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.

2001 TNO
 TNO-report

2 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 3 of 139

Executive summary

Objectives of the project:

The requirement of the Association of Plastic Manufacturers in Europe (APME) is

to be able to apply an integral, typical European model to demonstrate the relative
effectiveness, in economic and environmental impact terms of various plastic waste
recovery structures.
BASF has developed a user-friendly Eco-efficiency model to demonstrate the rela-
tive economics and environmental aspects of various products and processes within
their company. Its potential applicability is however much wider.
APME therefore requested TNO to calculate the economics and environmental as-
pects of several plastic packaging waste processing scenarios and to present the re-
sults in terms of Eco-efficiency using the BASF model.

The objectives of the study are to present an overview of the environmental aspects
and economical impacts of actual reference scenarios and different possible
(theoretical) scenarios of state of the art processing routes of packaging plastics,
including collection, pre-processing, mechanical recycling, feedstock recycling,
energy recovery and residues incineration. The environmental aspects and
economical impacts have been compared with the help of model calculations to
illustrate how an improved plastic packaging waste processing scenario can be in
terms of Eco-efficiency.
With the results of the model output interactive discussions with opinion formers
and policy makers can be held by APME. In particular the objectives and targets of
the European Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive, and the impending
revision of the targets are the basis of such discussions.

The report is divided in two parts. The first part covers a costs inventory and a Life
Cycle Assessment (LCA) of environmental impacts of developed theoretical sce-
narios of packaging plastics, in order to create a data basis for the demonstration of
the Eco-efficiency concept. The second part covers the Eco-efficiency calculations.
Different scenarios of processing routes of packaging plastics waste are compared
and analysed in terms of Eco-efficiency and are presented to give an indication
of the costs-environmental benefits of adopting various combinations of recovery
options.
 TNO-report

4 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 5 of 139

Executive summary part I: LCA study and costs inventory

Scenarios in the study:

The cost inventory and Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) of environmental impacts are
focussed on packaging plastics waste in the EU member states. Packaging in
Europe (15 EU-members and Norway and Switzerland) can be considered as a
single market with respect to plastics consumption, recycling of plastics and to
some extent waste treatment. The analysis considers packaging plastics in Munici-
pal Solid Waste (MSW) and from Industrial distribution packaging Waste (IW).
The packaging waste data used in the study are average EU data obtained from
literature. The technologies in this study are real, state of the art
examples, representative of developments in various Northern European countries.

Regarding packaging plastics in MSW the following processes for collection and
separation of packaging plastics are studied:
Bottle bank: (bring system), followed by manual sorting processes.
Specific packaging collection: Collection is focussed at specific (recyclable)
packaging fractions from MSW in a separate bin or bag (yellow bag). Recy-
clable fractions are partly manually sorted and partly mechanically processed.
Dry/wet collection: Collection of MSW occurs by a two bin (dry/wet) system
(grey bag) and mechanical processes separate collected fractions.
Integral collection: MSW is collected integrally without any separation pro-
cess.

Regarding IW the following processes for collection and separation of packaging

plastics are studied:
Separate collection of IW mono-streams (commercial films, crates and pal-
lets) followed by manual sorting processes.
Separate collection of IW mixed plastics (including non-response mono
streams) separated by manual and mechanical operations.
Integral IW collection: without any separation process.

Recycling and treatment processes in this study are:

Mechanical Recycling (MR): manufacturing of films, crates, pallets, thin
walled products (e.g. fertiliser bottles) to substitute products made of primary
plastics.
Mixed plastics recycling (MPR): production of thick walled products, which
substitute products, manufactured from concrete.
Feedstock recycling (FR): plastic mixtures as substitute for heavy fuel oil, as
a feed (reducing agent) in a blast furnace process or plastic mixtures as a feed
for the Texaco Gasification process as substitute for natural gas based syngas
in the methanol synthesis.
High efficient energy recovery (ERhigh): combustion of plastics in a coal fired
cement kiln whereby steam coal is substituted as energy source.
 TNO-report

6 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

Energy recovery by MSWI (ERMSWI): MSWI installations, which produce

useful energy in the form of heat and electricity.
Landfill: Integrally collected plastic packaging waste can be landfilled.

Out of these real processes (routes) theoretical scenarios are built (summarised in
Table T1):
Two reference scenarios are distinguished:
1. 100% landfill; in South-Europe landfill is the dominating applied waste
processing method. It is favourable to demonstrate the environmental bene-
fits when diversion from landfill occurs.
2. NOW; this scenario approaches the real situation in the EU with respect to
MR, FR, ERMSWI and landfill (in 1998/1999).
Scenario I, R15 (15% mechanical recycling and 85% energy recovery in a
MSWI) is based on two main developments:
- An in-depth analysis and evaluation of market development of secondary
packaging plastics has evidenced that the sensible mechanical recycling po-
tential for the foreseeable future will stay around 15%, especially with re-
spect to MR for the year 2006 [38]: the evaluation was made together with
key actors in the recycling area. This is the background on which scenario I
was built and the level of 15% is related to market limitations.
Mechanical recycling (MR) consists of the processing of relatively clean
plastic mono-streams (such as plastic films, crates, pallets derived from IW).
- Diversion from landfill means substitution by municipal solid waste
incineration (MSWI) in combination with recycling. The assumption is that
landfill will be substituted partly by modern MSWIs with energy recovery
and partly by recycling.
Scenarios II, III, IV resp. R25, R35, R50:
- The potential of 15% for sensible mechanical recycling is kept. Additional
recycling of more contaminated, more heterogeneous plastic packaging
streams is realised by feedstock recycling (FR) and/or mixed plastics recy-
cling (MPR).
- In scenario II, a first increase of recycling is achieved by feedstock recy-
cling. In Germany this option (blast furnace) is already operational for some
years. In this way the increase of 15% to 25% recycling is realised.
- A future increase from 25% to 35% has been considered in scenario III, via
MPR. Some Northern European countries have experience with such mixed
plastics recycling (substitution of wood and/or concrete).
- In scenario IV, a further increase of recycling from 35% to 50% is consid-
ered, which is achieved by increasing the recycling rates both via FR and
MPR. This scenario is in line with the actual approach in Germany.
- In all II-IV scenarios, energy recovery in a modern MSWI complements re-
cycling for treating the remaining part of the plastics waste stream.
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 7 of 139

Table T.1 Recycling targets of main scenarios.

Scenario Code Recycling target:

MR MPR FR ERhigh ERMSWI Landfill
3)
Reference 1 Landfill 100%
Reference 2 NOW 10.7% 1.3% 3.0% 2.0% 13.0% 70%
Scenario I R15 1) 15% 85%
Scenario II R25y or R25g 2) 15% 10% 75%
Scenario III R35y or R35g 2) 15% 10% 10% 65%
Scenario IV R50y or R35g 2) 15% 20% 15% 50%
1) For recycling rates up to 15% it is assumed this target can be achieved by collection of industrial
waste mono streams and by bottle bank collection. In the sensitivity analysis of this study some
additional scenarios are dealt with 10% recycling rate and 90% energy recovery; see part II, Execu-
tive Summary.
2) For higher recycling levels than 15% more comprehensive routes such as a grey bag system or a
yellow bag system are required. The code addition y and g is related to yellow bag and grey bag
system respectively.
3) In some figures in this report the Landfill scenario is presented with the abbreviation Landf.

Table T.1 presents the defined recycling targets of the scenarios for comparison.
The temporal framework of this study is the late nineties.
The (theoretical) recycling scenarios I, II, III and IV have been defined as a combina-
tion of processing routes and these scenarios reflect the present technology and the
developments in the next few years. The increasing recycling rate R of the scenarios
II, III and IV can be realised by the recycling of packaging plastics of MSW with two
alternative collection routes, either by yellow bag collection (scenarios R25y, R35y
and R50y) or by grey bag collection (scenarios R25g, R35g and R50g).

Results costs inventory:

Figure S.1 shows the results of the costs inventory of the reference and recycling
scenarios. Total costs are in the range of 0.17 Euro per kg (scenario landfill) to
0.67 Euro per kg packaging plastics (scenario R50y). Costs figures are divided in
4 parts; collection costs, separation and upgrading costs, treatment costs (applica-
tion processes) and resulting benefits (negative costs) as a consequence of the sub-
stitution of products. Figure S.1 demonstrates the increase of costs with increasing
R and these increased costs are only partly compensated by increased benefits. The
lower total costs level of grey bag scenarios compared with yellow bag scenarios is
mainly caused by differences in collection costs.
 TNO-report

8 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

0 .9 0
C O S T S t o t a l ( Eu r o / k g p la s t ic )

0 .7 5

0 .6 0

0 .4 5 s u b s titu tio n

a p p lic a tio n
0 .3 0
s e p a r a tio n

c o lle c tio n
0 .1 5

0 .0 0

- 0 .1 5
la n d f NO W R1 5 R2 5 y R3 5 y R5 0 y R2 5 g R3 5 g R5 0 g
s c e n a r io

Figure S.1 Results of costs inventory.

Environmental impacts:

Mass balances and energy balances are the calculation basis for environmental in-
terventions as emissions, depletions, wastes etc. Process data for mass balances
and energy balances in this study are derived from literature. Interventions are
translated into potential environmental effects. As a consequence environmental
impacts are expressed in terms of:
1. Mineral resources depletion potential (ADP),
2. Fuel resources depletion potential (EDP),
3. Global Warming Potential (GWP),
4. Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP),
5. Human Toxicity Potential (HTP),
6. Aquatic Eco Toxicity Potential (AETP),
7. Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential (POCP),
8. Acidification Potential (AP),
9. Nutrification Potential (NP),
10. Final Waste (FW),
11. Specific (hazardous) final waste (TW),
12. Cumulative energy requirement (ENER).

The overall comparison of environmental impacts of scenarios in this study is

illustrated by normalised bar charts; the average impacts per European capita per
year are used as normalisation factors. These graphs give an integral overview of
the jointly normalised environmental aspects of the scenarios, including impacts
and benefits for the environment. Figure S.2 shows the results of the comparison of
yellow bag scenarios R25y, R35y and R50y with both reference scenarios (landfill
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 9 of 139

and NOW) and scenario R15. Figure S.3 shows the results for the comparable grey
bag scenarios.

According figures S.2 and S.3 the environmental impacts FW and TW, followed by
EDP, ENER, GWP, POCP, AP and AETP, have a relatively significant contribu-
tion, considering the comparison of the scenarios. The calculated FW impact is
mainly a consequence of the landfill routes, whereas most of the TW impact is
generated from residues and fly ash of MSWI. The contributions to AETP, AP,
EDP, ENER and POCP are mainly realised by the avoided impacts of the substi-
tuted processes. To some extent the AETP, AP, EDP and ENER impacts are par-
tially affected by the energy input of the packaging plastics collection and treat-
ment.

Both reference scenarios cause a relatively high contribution to FW, whereas the
recycling scenarios in sequence of R15, R25, R35 and R50 realise relatively high
TW loads.

The comparison of the environmental impacts illustrated in figure S.2 and figure
S.3 does not result in an obvious image of the consequences of increasing the recy-
cling rate R. The GWP and POCP load reduce with increasing recycling rate R,
while the AETP, EDP and AP loads enlarge with increase of the recycling rate R.

Comparison of the yellow bag scenarios (figure S.2) and grey bag scenarios
(figure S.3) does not result in any significant differences. The grey bag scenarios
have a slightly higher AETP and EDP impact compared with the yellow bag sce-
narios, due to the energy requirement of mechanical separation in the case of appli-
cation of grey bag processing routes.
 TNO-report

10 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

0,0010

0,0008

0,0006 landf
NOW
0,0004
R15

0,0002 R25y
R35y
0,0000 R50y

-0,0002

-0,0004
P

FW
er

TW

TP
P
P

AP

TP
C
W

N
D
ED

AD

En

H
AE
PO
O
G

Figure S.2 Environmental impacts, normalised scores;

comparison reference scenarios with R15 (scenario I ), R25y, R35y and R50y
(scenarios II, III and IV, collection with yellow bag).

0,0010

0,0008

0,0006 landf
NOW
0,0004
R15
R25g
0,0002
R35g
0,0000 R50g

-0,0002

-0,0004
P

FW
P
er

P
P

TW
AP

TP
TP
C
W

N
ED

AD

En

H
AE
PO
O
G

Figure S.3 Environmental impacts, normalised scores;

comparison reference scenarios with R15 (scenario I ), R25g, R35g and
R50g (scenarios II, III and IV, collection with grey bag).
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 11 of 139

Executive summary part II: demonstration of Eco-efficiency

Weighting of environmental impacts:

For the presentation of an integral value of environmental impacts an aggregated

(or integral) environmental impact score is calculated. As a consequence integral
environmental impact scores in this study are based on weighting of the different
environmental aspects. Weighting is a subjective item. In order to compensate this
objection different weighting methods and weighting factors are used in this study,
whereas a clear distinction is made between results with and without weighting.
The base weighting method in this study gives all impacts equal weighting, except
for both the toxicity themes (AETP and HTP). The weighting factors for toxicity
are multiplied with a factor , because some uncertainties exist as to how this type
of impacts should be modelled.

The combined presentation of integral environmental impacts and total costs of the
studied scenarios is based on the Eco-efficiency portfolio presentation, as deve-
loped by BASF. This presentation has two important characteristics:
The differences between total costs scores and the differences between integral
environmental impact scores of individual scenarios are presented.
The portfolio is standardised and all values are made dimensionless.

Figure S.4 shows the results of the yellow bag scenarios R25y, R35y and R50y to-
gether with those of the both reference scenarios (landfill and NOW) and scenario
R15. The reference scenarios show the greatest environmental load, but the costs
are relatively low. Scenario R15 gives an obvious decrease of the environmental
load without a significant increase of costs. With increasing R value the scenarios
R25y, R35y and R50y show an increase in costs without an obvious reduction of
the environmental impacts. Scenario R15 (and then R25y) is the most favourable
scenario with regard to the Eco-efficiency analysis.

The Eco-efficiency method is clearly a demonstration tool for showing the conse-
quences of changed selections of scenario processes, weighting procedures or start-
ing points of calculations. The portfolio presentation can be used for illustration of
the sensitivity of these changes.

One of the questions raised is the comparison of the consequences of the grey bag
processing routes with those of the yellow bag processing routes. Figure S.5 shows
little difference is observed with respect to the Eco-efficiency of yellow bag sys-
tems versus the grey bag systems. The yellow bag systems are realised with higher
costs while the grey bag systems are characterised by somewhat more environ-
mental load.
 TNO-report

12 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

0
la n d f
Im p a c ts I.

NO W

R1 5
0.5
R2 5 y

R3 5 y

R5 0 y
1
1 0.5 C o s ts I. 0

Figure S.4 Eco-efficiency portfolio : Comparison of reference

scenarios with R15 (scenario I ), R25y, R35y and R50y
(scenarios II, III and IV by collection with yellow bag).

0
la n d f
Im p a c ts I.

NO W

R3 5 g
0.5
R5 0 g

R3 5 y

R5 0 y
1
1 0.5 C o s ts I. 0

Figure S.5 Eco-efficiency portfolio : Comparison of

reference scenarios with R35g, R50g, R35y and R50y
(scenarios III and IV by grey bag versus yellow bag).

With respect to the sensitivity analysis, weighting factors and normalisation factors
are varied within defined limits. In all analysed cases scenario R15, followed by
R25, is the most favourable one from the Eco-efficiency point of view.

In the sensitivity analyses specific assumptions for energy recovery and substituted
processes are varied. In the comparison, the exclusion of landfill is an important
prior condition for all recycling scenarios. Landfill instead of energy recovery
would result in a considerable increase of environmental impacts and a conside-
rable decrease of Eco-efficiency.
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 13 of 139

In figures S.6, S.7 and S.8 the consequences of specific assumptions for energy re-
covery and substituted processes are demonstrated comparing reference scenarios
and scenarios with yellow bag collection:
Figure S.6 shows the comparison if a substantial part of the energy recovery in
scenario R35y and R50y is realised by co-combustion of plastics in a cement
kiln (ERhigh).
Figure S.7 demonstrates the portfolio if the energy recovery by MSWI is real-
ised with high efficient heat recovery.
Figure S.8 demonstrates the portfolio if the feedstock recycling target (FR) in
all recycling scenarios is realised by gasification of plastics (Texaco process)
instead of the blast furnace.

The sensitivity analysis in figure S.6, S.7 and S.8 illustrates that these changes of
underlying specific assumptions for energy recovery and substituted processes has
a relatively small influence on the Eco-efficiency profiles. In all analyses scenario
R15, followed by R25, shows to be a favourable one with respect to Eco-
efficiency.

In the sensitivity analysis some additional scenarios are considered in addition to

the main recycling scenarios. The main objective is to illustrate the consequences
of a decreasing MR or MPR rate together with an increasing ER rate. In figure S.9
two additional scenarios with 10% mechanical recycling plus 90% energy recovery
are compared with the reference scenarios and the main recycling scenarios. In the
first additional scenario the 10% mechanical recycling is focused at IW plastic
mono streams (R10i/E90), whereas in the second additional scenario mechanical
recycling is mainly focussed at plastics in MSW.
Figure S.9 demonstrates that the Eco-efficiency of the 10% mechanical recycling
scenario focussed at IW plastic mono streams in this context is nearly equal with
the Eco-efficiency of the main scenario with 15% mechanical recycling and 85%
energy recovery (R15/E85).
Figure S.9 also demonstrates that the 10% mechanical recycling scenario focussed
at MSW plastics (R10m/E90) results in a considerable decrease of Eco-efficiency
compared with other scenarios (R15/85E and R10i/90E). The most important factor
is the increase of costs of mechanical and mixed plastics recycling of plastics in
MSW, compared with mechanical recycling of IW plastic mono streams or energy
recovery in a MSWI.
 TNO-report

14 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

0
landf
Impacts I.

NOW

R15
0.5
R25y

R35y HE

R50y HE
1
1 0.5 Costs I. 0

Figure S.6 Eco-efficiency portfolio :

Comparison of R35yHE and R50yHE (scenarios III and IV with energy re-
covery by means of a combination of MSWI and cement kiln) with scenario I
(R15), scenario II (R25y) and reference scenarios (landfill and NOW).

0
la n d f
Im p a c ts I.

NO W

R1 5
0.5
R2 5 y

R3 5 y

R5 0 y
1
1 0.5 C o s ts I. 0

Figure S.7 Eco-efficiency portfolio :

Comparison of R15, R25y, R35y and R50y (scenarios I, II, III and IV with
energy recovery by means of a MSWI with 65% heat recovery efficiency) with
the reference scenarios (landfill and NOW).
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 15 of 139

0
la n d f

Im p a c ts I.
NO W

R1 5
0.5
R2 5 y

R3 5 y

R5 0 y
1
1 0.5 C o s ts I. 0

Figure S.8 Eco-efficiency portfolio :

Comparison of R15, R25y, R35y and R50y (scenarios I, II, III and IV with
feedstock recycling by the Texaco gasification process) with the reference
scenarios (landfill and NOW).

0
landf
Impacts I.

NOW

R15

R25y
0.5
R35y

R50y

R10i

R10m
1
1 0.5 Costs I. 0

Figure S.9 Eco-efficiency portfolio :

Comparison of alternative scenarios with 10% mechanical recycling and
90% energy recovery (R10i, focussed at IW plastics and R10m, focussed at
MSW plastics) with scenarios I, II, III and IV (R15, R25y, R35y and R50y)
and reference scenarios (landfill and NOW).
 TNO-report

16 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

The general conclusions are:

The executed study is a first step with regard to the comparison of scenarios
with different levels of material recycling and energy recovery.
For this study (except the market evolution of recycled plastics) the approach is
descriptive rather than change oriented. It is based on theoretical scenarios. As
usual for such studies, results may vary according to the data used, the selected
primary products and processes which are substituted by secondary prod-
ucts/energy resources, or by the weighting method selected to calculate the inte-
grated environmental impact. Some variants around the basic scenarios I-IV il-
lustrate the impact this can have on the conclusions.
The calculations are related to the current situation with respect to the composi-
tion of plastics (the average European composition) and real state of the art
processes (developed in Northern Europe). The data used are related to the sec-
ond half of the nineties. This study does not present results of a dynamic ap-
proach with respect to composition changes of plastics and improvement of ex-
isting processes or introduction of new processes.
Within the described limitations the study indicates trends for the next decade.
The results of the study have to be used on an European level (or possibly coun-
try level) and are not applicable for any local/regional situation, because waste
volumes, compositions and regional collection systems can vary enormously.
The results of the study show:
- The single most positive impact on eco-efficiency comes via diversion from
landfill in favour of a combination of mechanical recycling of monomaterial
relatively clean waste + energy recovery in moderately efficient modern
MSWIs (30% energy recovery efficiency, complying with the new EU In-
cineration Directive).
- Increasing the efficiency of energy recovery improves the eco-efficiency of
the system.
- Increasing recycling rates from 15 to 50% (with FR and/or MPR) and corre-
spondingly decreasing the energy recovery rate increases costs by a factor 3
while environmental impact remain broadly similar.
- With the choice of the recovery options mechanical recycling of monomate-
rial relatively clean waste + energy recovery in moderately efficient
modern MSWIs, significant improvement in environmental impact could be
achieved at similar costs compared to the current EU average.
Further developments based on the results of this study can be:
- The execution of prospective studies of selected routes for given countries.
- The execution of a change-oriented approach including changes in plastics
composition and innovations in technological processes.
- An evaluation within 5 years to take into account the evolution of waste
composition, waste processing techniques and to include the actual experi-
ence in the field of municipal solid waste management.
The study has been critical reviewed by a panel of independent experts.
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 17 of 139

Table of contents

Executive summary ..................................................................................................... 3

Executive summary part I: LCA study and costs inventory ...................................... 5

Executive summary part II: demonstration of Eco-efficiency ................................. 11

Table of contents ....................................................................................................... 17

1. Introduction................................................................................................ 21
1.1 Background ................................................................................ 21
1.2 Objectives................................................................................... 22
1.3 Set up of the report .................................................................... 22

PART I: LCA study and costs inventory.................................................................. 23

2. Goal and scope of the study ...................................................................... 25

2.1 Goal of the study........................................................................ 25
2.1.1 Goal and description .................................................. 25
2.1.2 Target group ............................................................... 26
2.1.3 Initiator ....................................................................... 26
2.2 Scope of the study...................................................................... 26
2.2.1 Functional unit ........................................................... 26
2.2.2 Recycling categories .................................................. 27
2.2.3 Comparison of scenarios............................................ 27
2.3 Temporal representativity.......................................................... 30
2.4 Analysis-type ............................................................................. 31
2.5 Inventory aspects ....................................................................... 31
2.5.1 System definition ....................................................... 31
2.5.2 Process data and data quality..................................... 32
2.5.3 Allocation ................................................................... 33
2.6 Impact Assessment .................................................................... 33
2.7 Normalisation............................................................................. 34
2.8 Evaluation .................................................................................. 35
2.9 Critical review............................................................................ 35

3. Characteristics of plastic packaging waste ............................................... 37

3.1 Quantities of packaging plastics................................................ 37
3.2 Composition of packaging plastics ........................................... 37

4. Comparison basis....................................................................................... 39
4.1 Starting points for the set up of scenarios ................................. 39
 TNO-report

18 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

4.2 State of art processes ................................................................. 39

4.2.1 Processes for packaging plastics in MSW................. 40
4.2.2 Processes for packaging plastics in IW ..................... 40
4.2.3 Application processes ................................................ 41
4.3 Overview of routes .................................................................... 43
4.4 Substitution factors .................................................................... 44
4.5 Costs figures............................................................................... 45

5. Mass balances ............................................................................................ 49

5.1 Mass balances of routes ............................................................. 49
5.1.1 A1: Black Bag collection (MSW) ............................. 49
5.1.2 A2: Bottle Bank collection (MSW) ........................... 50
5.1.3 A3: Grey bag collection (MSW) ............................... 50
5.1.4 A4: Bottle bank combined with grey bag
system (MSW) ........................................................... 51
5.1.5 A5: Yellow bag collection (MSW)............................ 52
5.1.6 B1: Integral collection (IW)....................................... 53
5.1.7 B2: Separate collection of commercial films
and rigids (IW) ........................................................... 53
5.1.8 B3: Maximal separate collection of commercial
plastics (IW) ............................................................... 54
5.2 Scenarios .................................................................................... 55
5.2.1 Reference scenarios.................................................... 55
5.2.2 Recycling scenarios.................................................... 56

6. Inventory.................................................................................................... 61
6.1 Inventory of environmental data ............................................... 61
6.1.1 Inventory items........................................................... 61
6.1.2 Remarks concerning the inventory items .................. 62
6.1.3 Classification of inventory items ............................... 62
6.2 Inventory of costs data............................................................... 62

7. Impact assessment ..................................................................................... 65

8. Evaluation .................................................................................................. 75
8.1 Normalised Environmental Impacts.......................................... 75
8.2 Integral normalised results ........................................................ 84
8.3 Dominance analysis ................................................................... 85
8.4 Sensitivity analyses.................................................................... 86
8.4.1 Energy recovery by a combination of MSWI
and cement kiln .......................................................... 86
8.4.2 Energy recovery by a MSWI with 65% heat
recovery...................................................................... 89
8.4.3 Feedstock recycling by the Texaco gasification
process ........................................................................ 91
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 19 of 139

8.4.4 Sensitivity of normalisation factors........................... 93

9. Conclusions part I...................................................................................... 97

Part II: Demonstration Eco-efficiency....................................................................101

10. Introduction Eco-efficiency.....................................................................103

10.1 Weighting environmental impacts...........................................103
10.2 Portfolios.................................................................................104
10.3 Calculation basis for Eco-efficiency .......................................105

11. Results Eco-efficiency.............................................................................109

11.1 Comparison of grey bag and yellow bag system ....................109
11.2 Varying ER and FR .................................................................113
11.2.1 Energy recovery by a combination of MSWI
and cement kiln ........................................................113
11.2.2 Energy recovery by a MSWI with 65% heat
recovery....................................................................114
11.2.3 Feedstock recycling by the Texaco gasification
process ......................................................................115
11.3 Varying weighting and normalisation factors .........................115
11.4 Additional scenarios ................................................................118
11.5 Discussion ................................................................................120
11.5.1 Restrictions of dimensionless figures ......................120
11.5.2 Most sensitive environmental impacts ....................122
11.5.3 Weighting factors .....................................................123

12. Conclusions part II...................................................................................125

13. Critical Review Report ............................................................................127

14. References................................................................................................131

15. Abbreviations...........................................................................................135

16. Authentication..........................................................................................139
 TNO-report

20 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

Appendices

Appendix A: Data
A.1 Composition of packaging plastics
A.2 Mass balances of the routes
A.3 Application processes
A.4 Recycling and recovery rates per route
A.5 Background processes
A.6 Supplement mass balances

Appendix B: Results
B.1 Inventory items
B.2 Characterisation factors
B.3 Calculated results of routes
B.4 Scenarios by addition of routes
B.5 Impact assessment

Appendix C: LCA methodological aspects

C.1 Impact assessment
C.2 Normalisation
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 21 of 139

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

The requirement of the Association of Plastic Manufacturers in Europe (APME) is

to be able to apply an integral, typical European model to demonstrate the relative
effectiveness, in economic and environmental impact terms of various plastic waste
recovery structures.
BASF has developed a user-friendly model to illustrate Eco-efficiency compari-
sons and BASF has made this concept accessible for use by APME. With this
model it is possible to assist APME in developing an integral strategy for the recy-
cling or recovery of plastic waste streams, in particular for packaging plastics. With
the results of the model output interactive discussions with opinion formers and
policy makers can be conducted. The objectives and targets of the European Pack-
aging and Packaging Waste Directive, and the impending revision of targets are the
basis of such discussions.

With the help of the output of the model, the impact of higher recycling
amounts/higher recovery amounts is illustrated. This has been done for household
packaging waste and industrial packaging waste together. Actual waste processing
structures in several European countries and data from integral, technical, envi-
ronmental and economical studies already executed are the starting point for the
model use. Different combinations of mechanical recycling, feedstock recycling,
(high) energy recovery, incineration (with energy recovery) and landfill can be ap-
plied.
Different scenarios have to be calculated and weighted in terms of economics and
environmental aspects to show the relative effectiveness of the different combina-
tions of plastics processing options: Calculations give the results of an Eco-
efficiency analysis.
The benefits of an Eco-efficiency analysis in terms of waste recovery are :
The most appropriate recovery options can be chosen to optimise the balance
between environmental gain and economic costs.
The reassurance that recovery decisions are based on sound technical data.
The results identify opportunities for improvement.

APME requested TNO to calculate the economics and environmental aspects of

several plastic packaging waste processing scenarios and to present the results in
terms of Eco-efficiency using the BASF concept.
 TNO-report

22 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

1.2 Objectives

The objectives of the study are:

Comparison of the environmental aspects and economical impact of different
scenarios of integrated processing routes of packaging plastics, including col-
lection, pre-processing, mechanical recycling, feedstock recycling, energy re-
covery, residues incineration and as base case landfill.
Calculation and determination of the Eco-efficiency profiles of theoretical de-
veloped scenarios and comparison of them with the Eco-profiles of existing
base structures.
Execution of an analysis to illustrate how a plastic packaging waste processing
scenario can be improved in terms of Eco-efficiency.

1.3 Set up of the report

The report is divided in two parts.

Part I contains the LCA study and the costs inventory. This part meets the ISO
14040 LCA standard.
The main items of part I are:
Goal and scope of the costs inventory and LCA study
Characteristics of the plastic packaging waste
Basis for comparison of the different scenarios
Mass balances of the different scenarios
Inventory of the environmental and costs data
Impact assessment of the several environmental aspects
Normalisation of the different environmental aspects
Conclusions of part I

Part II contains the demonstration of the Eco-efficiency concept.

The main items of part II are:
Description of the Eco-efficiency concept
Calculation and demonstration of the Eco-efficiency impact
Conclusions of part II
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 23 of 139

PART I: LCA study and costs inventory

 TNO-report

24 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 25 of 139

2. Goal and scope of the study

2.1 Goal of the study

2.1.1 Goal and description

The goal of the study is to identify, on the basis of Europe-wide based scenarios,
eco-efficient trends in plastics packaging waste management for the next decade.
With the help of the results of model calculations several theoretical scenarios
based on existing processing routes can be compared with respect to environmental
impacts and resulting costs. Based on actual waste processing structures in several
European countries (especially Germany, Belgium, The Netherlands) and gathered
data from technical, environmental and economical studies already executed, theo-
retical scenarios are built and compared with reference scenarios. Analysis of the
current situation and comparison with theoretical scenarios with more material re-
cycling/energy recovery is the aim of model calculations. Different combinations
of mechanical recycling (of mono streams as well as mixed plastics), feedstock re-
cycling, high energy recovery, incineration (with energy recovery) and landfill are
compared.

Combination of the calculated and weighted environmental and economic impacts

will result in eco-efficiency presentations. These presentations will show the
relative effectiveness of different combinations of plastic processing options. The
results will show in which direction an improved processing of plastic packaging
waste will go and opportunities for improvement will be identified.
The study is a first step to illustrate, starting from the present situation, eco-
efficient options for recycling and recovery; a dynamic oriented follow-up will
give more support to the identified improvement options.

The study is focused on that part of Europe (15 EU members and Norway and
Switzerland) that can be considered as a single market with regard to plastic
packaging consumption and recycling of plastics. In practice the EU member states
are the relevant region for waste and waste treatment. Real data of processes, av-
erage European data of (plastic) waste and typical data of other aspects from (re-
gions of) EU member states are applied for the calculations.
The study will indicate trends for the next decade. This means that the results of the
study have to be used on a European level (or possibly country level) and are not
applicable for any local/regional situation. In accordance to these situations re-
gional waste volumes, waste compositions and regional collection and treatment
systems have to be considered.

For this study (except the market evolution of recycled plastics) the approach is de-
scriptive rather than change oriented. It is based on theoretical scenarios. As usual
 TNO-report

26 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

for such studies, results may vary according to the data used, the selected primary
products and processes which are substituted by secondary products/energy re-
sources, or by the weighting method selected to calculate the integrated environ-
mental impact.

2.1.2 Target group

With the results of the study interactive discussions with opinion formers and
policy makers on a European level can be conducted. The objectives and targets of
the European Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive, and the impending
revision of targets are mostly the basis of such discussions. In this area at least
three groups of actors can be distinguished:
Policy makers (National government, EU Commission and EU Parliament).
Industry.
Non-Governmental Organisations.

Representatives of these groups are in a permanent discussion about the optimal

waste management situation and recovery structures for plastic packaging. The re-
sults of this study should serve as a common basis of information in this ongoing
discussion.

2.1.3 Initiator

Initiator of this study is the APME (Association of Plastics Manufacturers in

Europe).

2.2 Scope of the study

2.2.1 Functional unit

The functional unit (FU) is the base for analysis and comparison in this study.

FU in this project is:

the coherent treatment of 1 kg average packaging plastics out of Mu-
nicipal Solid Waste (MSW) and out of Industrial packaging Waste (IW).

Explanation:
Coherent treatment in this sense means a specific combination of processes,
which allows for an adequate treatment of the mix of plastic packaging.
Average packaging plastics means a weighted average in composition and
morphology of packaging plastics in European MSW and IW.
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 27 of 139

For comparisons a state of the art selection of application processes has to be

made. In chapter 4 an execution of this selection is described.

transport transport
1 kg plastics collection sorting treatment
in plastics & (application)
MSW and IW from waste cleaning

Figure 2.2.1 Functional unit (FU) for comparison in this study:

coherent treatment processes of 1 kg plastics.

2.2.2 Recycling categories

In view of the goal of the study, the comparisons should include a reference as well
as state of the art examples of application processes for mechanical recycling,
feedstock recycling and energy recovery.
With respect to the different recovery options the following possibilities can be dis-
tinguished:

Mechanical Recycling processes (MR/MPR)

(mono-material) mechanical recycling (MR); the recycled plastic substitutes
the virgin material
mixed plastics recycling (MPR); the recycled plastics substitute a non-plastic
material (e.g. wood, concrete)

Feedstock Recycling processes (FR)

The recycled plastics substitute the application of fossil resources (feedstock) in
production processes (substitution of gas, oil, etc.).

Energy recovery processes (ER)

The use of recycled plastics as a fuel during energy production (co-combus-
tion), characterised by a high conversion efficiency (ERhigh)
Plastics in waste are incinerated and energy application is a side activity
(ERmswi)

2.2.3 Comparison of scenarios

In this study the environmental aspects and costs of six defined (theoretical) sce-
narios based on existing waste processing routes have been compared. Table 2.2.3
presents an overview of the scenarios and the defined recycling targets. The build-
ing of the scenarios is as follows:
 TNO-report

28 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

Out of these real processes (routes) theoretical scenarios are built (summarised in
Table T1):
Two reference scenarios are distinguished:
1. 100% landfill; in South-Europe landfill is the dominating applied waste
processing method. It is favourable to demonstrate the environmental bene-
fits when diversion from landfill occurs.
2. NOW; this scenario approaches the real situation in the EU with respect to
MR, FR, ERMSWI and landfill (in 1998/1999).
Scenario I, R15 (15% mechanical recycling and 85% energy recovery in a
MSWI) is based on two main developments:
- An in-depth analysis and evaluation of market development of secondary
packaging plastics has evidenced that the sensible mechanical recycling po-
tential for the foreseeable future will stay around 15%, especially with re-
spect to MR for the year 2006 [38]: the evaluation was made together with
key actors in the recycling area. This is the background on which scenario I
was built and the level of 15% is related to market limitations.
Mechanical recycling (MR) consists of the processing of relatively clean
plastic mono-streams (such as plastic films, crates, pallets derived from IW).
- Diversion from landfill means substitution by municipal solid waste
incineration (MSWI) in combination with recycling. The assumption is that
landfill will be substituted partly by modern MSWIs with energy recovery
and partly by recycling.
Scenarios II, III, IV resp. R25, R35, R50:
- The potential of 15% for sensible mechanical recycling is kept. Additional
recycling of more contaminated, more heterogeneous plastic packaging
streams is realised by feedstock recycling (FR) and/or mixed plastics recy-
cling (MPR).
- In scenario II, a first increase of recycling is achieved by feedstock recy-
cling. In Germany this option (blast furnace) is already operational for some
years. In this way the increase of 15% to 25% recycling is realised.
- A future increase from 25% to 35% has been considered in scenario III, via
MPR. Some Northern European countries have experience with such mixed
plastics recycling (substitution of wood and/or concrete).
- In scenario IV, a further increase of recycling from 35% to 50% is consid-
ered, which is achieved by increasing the recycling rates both via FR and
MPR. This scenario is in line with the actual approach in Germany.
- In all II-IV scenarios, energy recovery in a modern MSWI complements re-
cycling for treating the remaining part of the plastics waste stream.
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 29 of 139

Table 2.2.3 Recycling targets of scenarios.

Scenario Code Recycling target:

MR MPR FR ERhigh ERMSWI Landfill
3)
Reference 1 Landfill 100%
Reference 2 NOW 10.7% 1.3% 3.0% 2.0% 13.0% 70%
Scenario I R15 1) 15% 85%
Scenario II R25y or 15% 10% 75%
R25g 2)
Scenario III R35y or 15% 10% 10% 65%
R35g 2)
Scenario IV R50y or 15% 20% 15% 50%
R50g 2)
1) For recycling rates up to 15% it is assumed this target can be achieved by collection of industrial
waste mono streams and by bottle bank collection. In the sensitivity analysis of this study some ad-
ditional scenarios are dealt with 10% recycling rate and 90% energy recovery.
2) For higher recycling levels than 15% more comprehensive routes such as a grey bag system or a
yellow bag system are required. The code addition y and g is related to yellow bag and grey bag
system respectively.
3) In some figures in this report the Landfill scenario is presented with the abbreviation Landf.

In scenarios III and IV (see table 2.2.3) there is an alternative for ERmswi as the ER
option. This alternative ER option consists of 33.8% ER mswi and 31.2% ERhigh .in
the case of R35, whereas 33.8 % ERmswi and 16.2% ERhigh .in the case of R50. The
calculations of the last mentioned options for R50 and R35 are executed during the
sensitivity analysis.

The scenarios can be defined in different ways, with different coherent treatment
processes.
For example: the 10% FR target can be reached by means of:
Two bin (dry/wet) collection, with the MSW plastics in the dry fraction, fol-
lowed by a mechanical separation of a mixed plastics fraction.
Yellow bag collected MSW packaging fraction with plastics, followed by
combined manual and mechanical separation of mixed plastics.
Collection of mixed IW plastics, followed by mechanical separation.
 TNO-report

30 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

co lle c tio n so rtin g & t re a tm e n t

1 kg p la s tic s MSW c le a n in g ( a p p lica tio n )
in
M S W a n d IW co lle c tio n so rtin g & t re a tm e n t
IW c le a n in g ( a p p lica tio n )

Figure 2.2.3 Separate routes for packaging plastics in MSW and in IW.

Scenarios in this study have been defined as a combination of selected routes of proc-
esses with state of the art technologies. In general, packaging plastics in IW are col-
lected separately from packaging plastics in MSW. That is why the routes for
packaging plastics in MSW are considered apart from routes for IW packaging
plastics (see figure 2.2.3). In chapter 4 the selection of routes and the combination of
routes to build up the required scenarios are executed.

The study is focused on that part of Europe (15 EU members and Norway and
Switzerland) that can be considered as a single market with respect to plastics
consumption and recycling of plastics. With regard to waste treatment national (re-
gional) policy is dominating, but more and more EU-directives are becoming the
leading starting condition. In practice the EU member states are the relevant region
for the waste and the waste treatment. This does not mean that all input data are
based on real average EU data. Whereas waste quantities and composition data are
based on European averages from inventories in literature (see also chapter 3), the
technologies in this study are based on real state of the art examples, representa-
tive for the actual developments in Northern European countries (see also
paragraph 2.5.2).

2.3 Temporal representativity

Data on waste arising and composition refer to the period 1996-1998. Data on the
technologies and fore ground processes used (see2.5.1), varies per technology:
landfill (historical data 1990-1998)
mechanical recycling (1996-1999)
feedstock recycling (1996-1999)
energy recovery (1996-1999)

Data for the background processes, e.g. electricity production, transport, utilities,
etc.(see chapter 2.5.1), refer to the period 1990-1999.
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 31 of 139

2.4 Analysis-type

In the current methodology of LCA, a distinction is made between marginal and

average analysis. Marginal analysis is change-oriented, whilst average analysis is
descriptive.
This study has a descriptive (average) character looking from the waste world to
the rest of the economic society. With respect to market outlets for recycled mate-
rials, a dynamic approach is applied.

2.5 Inventory aspects

2.5.1 System definition

Figure 2.5.1 shows the basic system for analysing. Scenarios are constructed by
routes, including two type of processes:
Foreground processes: the collection of plastics, sorting and cleaning and ap-
plication processes
Background processes; theses processes include inputs for foreground proces-
ses and the substituted processes. Substitution is a consequence of the recovery
of plastic products.

Figure 2.5.1 System outline in this study.

 TNO-report

32 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

2.5.2 Process data and data quality

Process data for Foreground Processes and costs data are derived from literature.
Quantities and morphology of plastics are based on the Sofres study (1)
Collection and separation are mainly based on the Cold Box study (2).
Application processes are bases on TNO models (15,16), on the Fraunhofer
studies (3, 4) and on the Texaco study (5).

A more detailed overview of the processes is given in table 2.5.2.

Table 2.5.2 Overview of the processes/activities.

Name process/activity Reference(s) Geographical Year (range) Characterisation

representativeness data
Collection (2), (39), (40) Germany, Belgium, 1995 - 1999 Typical
Netherlands,
Switzerland,
Scandinavia, Italy
Pretreatment/separation/sorting (2), (39), (40) Germany, Belgium, 1995 - 1999 Typical
Netherlands, Sweden,
Norway
Mechanical recycling mono- (4), (40) Germany, Belgium, 1996 - 1999 Typical
streams Netherlands, Italy
Mixed plastics recycling (4) Germany 1996 - 1999 Typical
Blast furnace (3) Germany 1996 1999 Typical
Texaco gasification (5) Netherlands 1996 1998 Typical
Cement kiln (4) Germany 1996 1999 Typical
MSWI (3), (15), (16), (25) Netherlands, Germany 1995 1999 Average
Landfill (15), (16) Netherlands 1990 - 1998 Average

The scope of these studies is the European area and the results of these studies are
supported (checked) by the main actors with respect to the different aspects.

Process data for background processes are derived from LCA literature (databases):
Production of primary plastics: APME reports (17)
Production of fuels, energy conversions and transport processes: BUWAL 250
(18)

BUWAL 250 incorporates the APME data (17) and has added more information to
these specified data sets.1) Foreground data as well as background data are from
different sources. Data quality is different varying from good to estimations and is
dependent of the sources. This is acceptable within the scope of the study.

1)
For the production of primary plastics the BUWAL 250 data are not applied, but
the original APME data. This inconsistency is of minor relevance, because all re-
cycling scenarios include an amount of 15% MR (substitution of primary plas-
tics), so possible differences between scenarios are leveled out.
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 33 of 139

2.5.3 Allocation

In case of a multi-functional input and /or output process, the interventions of that
process should be allocated to the relevant substance flow of the functional unit.

Allocation for multi-input processes like co-combustion, MSW incineration and

landfill has been carried out on basis of physical causality (15, 16, 19).

In this study the allocation problem occurs mainly at multi-output processes at the
end of the routes or the value of their end products. Two different approaches ex-
ist (13, 14), as defined in ISO (14)), with the following order:
1) avoid allocation by system enlargement;
2) define a relevant criterion for allocation.

Both approaches are being used in practice. System enlargement has the advantage
of avoiding the problem. The disadvantage is that in case of a comparison of dif-
ferent systems, the lowest common multiple might become a very complex system,
including almost the whole world of processes. The discriminative power between
the results becomes very weak, because the results are mainly determined by the
imported processes. For this reason it is more clarifying to present the results in the
form of a difference: the substitution method. In this case the resulting end
products are valued on basis of the production processes, which they are able to
avoid, when using them. Theoretically there is a difference between system
enlargement and the substitution method, but regarding the present differences be-
tween the scenarios both methods are comparable with each other.
If necessary corrections for the difference in primary and secondary material qual-
ity, life time differences etc. have to be made by means of substitution factors (see
table 4.4.1).

2.6 Impact Assessment

For LCA studies several impact assessment methods are reported. Most important
differences between published methods are how to deal with the environmental
themes toxicology, depletion and final waste. Each of these impact assessment
methods has its own specific merits combined with specific disadvantages. In this
field the CML method (6) is one of the most detailed and in the European area
most accepted method. Consequently the impact assessment method in this study is
mainly based on the CML method (6). According to the CML impact assessment
method invented interventions (emissions and depletions) are translated into
potential environmental effects. Table 2.6 gives an overview of these effects.

)
ISO 14042 gives a detailed description for the allocation procedure in LCAs.
 TNO-report

34 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

This study applies some adaptations to the CML method (concerning ADP, EDP,
HTP, AETP, energy (ENER), final waste (FW) and specific final waste (TW); see
Table 2.6). The background of these adaptations is discussed in appendix C1.

Table 2.6 Overview of environmental effects.

Environmental effect Abbreviation Dimension

Mineral Resources Depletion Potential ADP (kg.y) 1 E+15
Fuel Resources Depletion Potential EDP (MJ.y) 1 E+15
Global Warming Potential GWP kg eq. CO2
Ozone Depletion Potential ODP kg eq. CFC11
Human Toxicity Potential HTP kg eq. htp
Aquatic Eco toxicity Potential AETP m3 eq. aetp
Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential POCP kg eq. C2H4
Acidification Potential AP kg eq. SO2
Nutrification Potential NP kg eq. PO4
Special categories
Final Waste FW Kg
Specific final Waste (hazardous waste) TW Kg
Cumulative energy requirement ENER GJ

2.7 Normalisation

A first step in the interpretation of the results is to translate the absolute scores of
the environmental effect into relative scores. In this case the absolute scores are
expressed as fractions of the total score of that particular environmental effect in a
relevant region. The relevant region in this study is Europe. Normalisation factors
in this study are derived per capita per year.

Table 2.7 gives an overview of normalisation factors. Background information of

normalisation factors is reported in appendix C.2.
Table 2.7 Normalisation factors.

Unit Factor
ADP kg.y. E-15 0.00043
EDP MJ.y. E-15 0.0016
GWP 1/kg eq. CO2 0.000085
ODP 1/kg eq. CFC11 11.3
POCP 1/kg eq. C2H4 0.11
AP 1/kg eq. SO2 0.021
NP 1/kg eq. PO4 0.019
FW 1/kg 0.0008
TW 1/kg 0.013
Ener 1/GJ 0.0073
AETP 1/m3 eq. aetp 0.000014
HTP 1/kg eq. htp 0.000095
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 35 of 139

2.8 Evaluation

Evaluation of environmental aspects:

The characterisation step (the scores of the potential environmental effects) gives
an environmental profile. This profile can be expressed in a bar chart. This can be
done both for the absolute scores as well as for the normalised scores. The profile
with normalised scores gives information about the relative importance of the
various scores.
The environmental analysis (based on LCA methodology) ends with these profiles,
according to ISO 14040 - 14043 (13).

Evaluation of costs aspects:

In principle the invented costs are real costs, without subsidies, profits, etc. For
the scenarios the invented costs per FU can be compared with each other. The costs
per scenario can be split up to the different routes, which build up the scenario, or
to the different parts of the route (collection, separation, application).

Eco-efficiency:
The results as impacts of individual environmental themes are not used directly as
a decision support. In that case the relation between the environmental effects must
be determined, viz. weighting of the scores.
In order to describe this process on a transparent way, different weighting proce-
dures, reflecting different starting points, have been used in order to produce a con-
clusive stage.
The results of the environmental weighting scores of a scenario are presented every
time in combination with the normalised costs figure of that scenario: The Eco-
efficiency score (a one point score in a graph with two axes). This part of the study
is reported in part II of the report.

2.9 Critical review

This study has been critically reviewed by a team of four experts: Mrs. H. Teulon
(Price Waterhouse Coopers), Mr. G.C. Bergsma (CE), Mr. R. Hischier (EMPA),
Mr. T. Nurrenbach (Fraunhofer Institut).
The critical review process contained the following steps:
Distribution of the first concept report to the critical review team.
The critical review team members distributed lists with questions/remarks to the
other team members, TNO and APME.
Explanation of the questions/remarks is given during the joint meeting at
October 4th 2000. A summary of the agreements is sent to the others by
H. Teulon.
TNO has labelled the questions of each team member list and has sent the
answers to each team member how to handle the remaining questions
 TNO-report

36 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

Based on the agreements of the 4 October 2000 meeting and the residual re-
marks of the critical review team TNO has prepared a second concept report
and has sent it to the team and APME.
During the meeting of March 20th 2001 an agreement is reached on the final ad-
justments.
TNO incorperates these adjustments and has sent the upgraded report to the
critical review team members.
Based on this report the team members give their comments to H. Teulon.
With respect to all comments H. Teulon has written the critical review report
agreed by the other team members; see chapter 13.
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 37 of 139

3. Characteristics of plastic packaging waste

3.1 Quantities of packaging plastics

The subject of this study concerns plastic packaging waste from household sources
(MSW) and plastic packaging waste from industrial and commercial sources (IW).
With respect to the contribution of both sources the following quantities of packag-
ing plastics in MSW and IW are considered (1):

1 kg plastic packaging (FU) :

0.718 kg plastic packaging from MSW
0.282 kg plastic packaging from IW.

3.2 Composition of packaging plastics

Composition parameters:
Statistical data of plastic type (PE/PP, PET, PVC etc.) and morphology (bottles,
films, etc) in this study are derived from the Sofres Study (1). Morphology of
packaging plastics is presented in table 3.2.1 (MSW) and table 3.2.2 (IW).
Elemental composition of plastics is presented in appendix A1.1. Elemental com-
position of the packaging plastic in this study is extracted from the Fraunhofer
study (ref. [3] ; table 1.1-4).
Heating values of plastics are calculated by the Boie formula. (ref.[3]; paragraph
A1-2.2.2.2)

Contaminants and water content:

The FU of this study is based on 1 kg plastics, without waste contamination and
water. During the collection of waste the plastic packaging will be contaminated
with other waste components and water.
The other waste components belong to other product systems and are not recog-
nised as a part of this system study. Water is partly descended from other waste
components (other product systems) and originates partly from climate circum-
stances, such as rain.
Only when different processes differ in relation with contaminants and water the
consequences for comparisons have to be considered. This results in the following
argued assumptions:
During collection no remarkable presence of contaminants and water is fore-
seen (assumption: There are no relevant differences between the different col-
lection systems).
For the estimation of the needed input (the energy requirement and the utility
requirement) of separation processes the present contaminants and water are
considered. The selected separation processes are based on these aspects. Re-
garding the calculations of the environmental output of separation processes
 TNO-report

38 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

(emissions, residues) the influence of contaminants is not considered (assump-

tion: There are no relevant differences).
The preparation stage of MR, MPR and FR contains a drying process. The
specifications of the input of mechanical recycling, feedstock recycling and
mixed plastic recycling are as such that the contribution of contaminants and
water to the environmental impact is negligible.
For the ER option MSWI the reduction of energy production because of the
presence of water is incorporated. During the calculations water contents of
10 wt% and 15 wt% are included as performed in the Fraunhofer studies (3,4).
The presence of contaminants is not assumed.

Table 3.2.1 Plastic type and morphology of MSW category.

Polymer type: Morphologic fraction: w%

PE/PP Large films 21.8%
PE/PP Small films 25.3%
PE/PP Bottles 10.2%
PE/PP Other rigids 8.9%
PET Bottles 11.7%
PET Other rigids 1.4%
PS/EPS Bottles 0.6%
PS/EPS Other rigids 10.3%
PVC Large films 1.8%
PVC Small films 2.1%
PVC Bottles 3.5%
PVC other rigids 2.4%
Total 100%

Table 3.2.2 Plastic type and morphology of IW category.

Polymer type: Morphologic fraction: w%

PE/PP Large films 54.4%
PE/PP Small films 2.9%
PE/PP Crates & pallets 26.5%
PE/PP Rigids 10.0%
PS/EPS Rigids 6.2%
Total 100%
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 39 of 139

4. Comparison basis

4.1 Starting points for the set up of scenarios

As already described the scenarios to be compared are based on a coherent pro-

cessing of 1 kg packaging plastics, with 718 g from MSW and 282 g from IW.

All scenarios consequently are constructed from two routes:

a MSW route for 718 g packaging plastics in MSW and
a IW route for 282 g packaging plastics in IW.

The filling in of routes with state of the art processes can differ from each other.
The several routes each result in a specified recycling score (R) regarding the
amount of MR, FR and/or MPR recycling.

R = (MR + FR + MPR)

The recycling score R of the route is calculated with the mass balance of the re-
garded route. The distributing parameters of the mass balance (such as response
rates, separation efficiencies) are based on practical figures and experience data.
The recycling scores R of individual routes generally dont match exactly with the
defined recycling targets of the scenarios (table 2.2.3). In this study the scenarios
(especially with high recycling targets) consequently are constructed as a combina-
tion of a number of supplemented routes.

In the next chapter of this report the state of the art processes to build up the routes
are described.

4.2 State of art processes

The routes contain state of the art processes for collection, separation and applica-
tion of plastic packaging waste1. The selection of the different processes has the
support of the steering group of APME.

The processes are described in detail in appendix A.2 (collection and separation
processes) and appendix A.3 (application processes).
Hereafter a short description of the different processes is presented.

1
Non packaging plastic waste is excluded.
 TNO-report

40 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

4.2.1 Processes for packaging plastics in MSW

Regarding MSW the following processes for collection and separation of packag-
ing plastics are studied:
Bottle bank: This collection system only concerns bottles from households
etc. (bring system). The response rate is limited and is assumed to be 20% in
this study. Bottle bank collection is restricted to PP/PE and PET type of bottles.
Plastics collected by bottle banks are relatively clean. A simple manual sorting
succeeds and after this activity the required specifications are realised. Bottle
bank collection will reduce the percentage plastic bottles in the resulting MSW.
Bottle Bank collection generally is combined with a black bag or with a grey
bag collection method for the other plastic packaging articles.
Yellow bag collection: This collection method includes separate collection of
specific (recyclable) packaging fractions from MSW in a separate bin or bag
(yellow bag). Generally yellow bag collection includes plastic packaging, bev-
erage cartons, and metal packaging. Response rate is assumed 67% and non-
response plastics will be collected with other fractions of MSW. The collected
content of the yellow bag is manually sorted and mechanically upgraded. The
upgraded output is divided over MR (bottle fraction), MPR (films and mixed
plastics) and FR (mixed plastics). Yellow bag collection generally is combined
with a black bag collection method for non-response plastic fractions.
Dry/wet collection: The collection of MSW occurs by a two bin (dry/wet) sys-
tem. The wet bin contains putrescibles and organic wastes, whereas the dry bin
(grey bag) includes the resulting mixture of all other MSW fractions, including
packaging plastics and non-response putrescibles. Grey bag response rate for
packaging plastics is assumed 100% because all plastics in the wet bin are
separated and transferred to the grey bag processing. The content of the grey
bag will be mechanically separated and upgraded. The upgraded output does
not match specifications for MR. The output will be restricted for MPR, FR or
ER purposes.
Integral collection: The integral collected MSW in one bin (black bag) con-
tains all MSW fractions. The response rate for packaging plastics is 100% and
packaging plastics from integral collected MSW can not be separated or up-
graded further in an economical way and have to be landfilled or incinerated
integrally.

4.2.2 Processes for packaging plastics in IW

Regarding IW the following processes for collection and separation of packaging

plastics are studied:
Separate collection of IW mono-streams: Some specific plastic articles in IW
(commercial films, crates and pallets) are collected separately. These plastic
mono streams are relatively clean. Addition of a relatively simple manual sort-
ing achieves an output with the right specifications for MR.. The response rate
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 41 of 139

is assumed to be 67% for crates and about 50% for films. Non-response pack-
aging plastics from IW have to be collected together with other IW fractions
(generally by an integral collection method).
Separate collection of IW mixed plastics: Mixed plastic articles from IW (in-
cluding non-response mono streams) are collected separately. The response is
assumed to be about 50%. Separation and upgrading of IW mixed plastics re-
sults in a specified output for MPR processing. Non-response mixed plastics
from IW have to be collected with the other IW fractions (generally by an inte-
gral collection method).
Integral IW collection: Integral collected IW waste contains a mixture of all
IW fractions. Response rate is assumed to be100%. Packaging plastics from in-
tegral collected IW can not be upgraded further and have to be landfilled or in-
cinerated.

4.2.3 Application processes

Mechanical Recycling MR
MR processes only can be applied to manual sorted plastic fractions. Application
processes include manufacturing of films, crates, pallets, thin walled products (e.g.
fertiliser bottles) to substitute products made of primary plastics.
Origin of input for these processes (as secondary granules, flakes etc.) is:
bottle fraction of MSW by bottle bank collection and yellow bag system
film fraction of MSW, by yellow bag system
film fraction of IW, by IW collection system
crates and pallets of IW, by IW collection system

Mixed plastics recycling MPR

Compared with the processes of mechanical recycling the MPR processes can be
applied to some mechanically sorted/separated fractions. Application processes in-
clude the production of thick walled products, which substitute products manufac-
tured from concrete. As a result of the properties of the different materials the life-
time of concrete products is assumed shorter than products from recycled mixed
plastics.
The upgraded/aggregated plastic mixtures as input for concrete substitution are
derived from:
film fractions of MSW, collected by yellow bag system
mixed plastic fractions of MSW, by grey bag system
mixed plastic fractions of IW, by IW collection system
 TNO-report

42 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

Feedstock recycling (FR)

Compared with the M(P)R processes the FR processes can be applied to mechani-
cally sorted/separated fractions or to residues from manual sorting with limited up-
grading.
In this study two different processes are studied for feedstock recycling:
1. Base FR: plastic mixtures as substitute for heavy fuel oil, as a reducing agent in
a Blast Furnace process.
2. Plastic mixture as feed for the Texaco Gasification process, producing syngas as
substitute for natural gas based syngas in the methanol synthesis.

High efficient energy recovery (ERhigh)

ERhigh is applied to specific waste mixtures, such as plastic mixtures and sorting
residues from yellow bag system and RDF (refuse derived fuel) from grey bag sys-
tem.
Compared with the processes of mechanical or feedstock recycling the mechani-
cally sorted fractions without upgrading can be applied for ERhigh. Thermal effi-
ciency is high (> 70%) and conventional fossil fuels are substituted.
In this study a coal fired cement kin is applied for ERhigh and steam coal is substi-
tuted as energy source.

Energy recovery by MSWI (ERmswi):

ERmswi is applied to waste mixtures and sorting residues. Also integral collected
waste can be incinerated in a MSWI.
MSWI installations will produce energy in the form of useful heat and electricity.
Generally ERmswi has a limited thermal efficiency compared to ERhigh, A MSWI
process has to comply with a strict flue gas cleaning standard. Flue gas cleaning
requires additional input of energy, reducing the net energy production.

In this study three typical MSWI configurations (models) are applied as ER mswi
option. They differ from each other by flue gas cleaning efficiency and by energy
recovery efficiency.

Landfill:
Integral collected plastic packaging waste can be landfilled; the average landfill
model is based on literature data.
This model concerns a controlled landfill, which is isolated after 15 years and will
be controlled for a period of 85 years afterwards. The biogas is partly captured and
the water effluent is purified. The calculations of the environmental consequences
of landfill concern an active time period of 100 years. For longer periods than
100 years no data are available.

Within 100 years 5% of the plastic packaging will be degraded in the landfill
(assumption). No net energy production will take place (the produced electricity
from biogas is applied on behalf of the effluent cleaning, etc).
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 43 of 139

4.3 Overview of routes

Based on the different collection systems the following routes for MSW and IW
can be distinguished:

MSW A1 Black Bag collection

A2 Bottle Bank collection (and Black Bag collection)
A3 Grey Bag collection
A4 Bottle Bank collection and Grey Bag collection
A5 Yellow Bag collection

IW B1 Integral collection
B2 Separate collection of films and rigids
B3 Separate collection of films, rigids and mixed plastics

Each of these routes has a different mechanical and feedstock recycling potential
(regarding the R score). The different application possibilities of the regained plas-
tic fractions for MR, FR or MPR purposes are dependent of the quality of collec-
tion methods and the applied sorting and separation processes (especially mixing
and contamination of the plastics output during collection, sorting and mechanical
separation plays an important role; the choice for manual or mechanical sort-
ing/separation has a relevant impact). Table 4.3.1 shows an overview of the recy-
cling potential of the different routes.

Table 4.3.1 Routes in this study and their recycling potential.

Route Separation/upgrading MR MPR FR ER mswi

MSW
A1 Black Bag None - - - X
A2 Bottle Bank Manual X - - +
A3 Grey Bag Mechanical - X X +
A4 Bottle Bank + Grey Bag Manual + mechanical X X X +
A5 Yellow Bag Manual + mechanical X X X +
IW
B1 Integral None - - - X
B2 Separate collection Manual X - - +
B3 Separate collection incl. Manual + mechanical X X - +
mixed plastics
X = product
+ = by-product
 TNO-report

44 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

4.4 Substitution factors

The products as output of the plastic processing routes vary considerably. An out-
put of plastics for bottles, fences and feedstock has to be compared with a plastics
output for energy purposes (e.g. electricity and heat).

For each of the substituted primary products the so called substitution factor (S)
is defined as the ratio of primary material or primary energy replaced by the pro-
duced secondary material or secondary energy source during the application proc-
esses. Substitution factors applied in this study are presented in table 4.4.1 and ex-
plained in appendix A3.

Some examples to illustrate the substitution factors are:

Substitution factor 1 for bottle recyclate means: each kg bottle recyclate substi-
tutes 1 kg virgin polymers (a mixture of 45 % PE + 15 % PVC + 40 % PET ).
Underlying assumption is that relevant technical qualifications of the bottle re-
cyclate and virgin polymers are identical.
Substitution factor 10 for mixed plastics recyclate means each kg recyclate
substitutes 10 kg concrete mix in a fence application. Underlying assumption
is that technical qualifications of recyclate result in an increase of lifetime of
the fence by a factor 4, whereas weight reduction by polymer is a factor 2.
Substitution factor 1,43 for coal (ERhigh) means each kg RDF replaces 1,43 kg
coal input in the cement kiln (based on LHV), according [4].
Substitution factor 0,97 for oil (FR) means each kg feedstock mixture replaces
0,97 kg oil input in the blast furnace according [3].
The efficiency of the electricity production by the MSWI is 20%. Substitution
factor 1 for electricity recovery means 1 MJ electricity output is replaced by 1
MJ average grid electricity (UCPTE electricity).
The efficiency of the heat production by the MSWI is 10%. Substitution fac-
tor 1 for heat recovery means 1 MJ MSWI heat output replaces 1 MJ average
heat generations (UCPTE heat).
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 45 of 139

Table 4.4.1 Substitution factors.

Substitution Substituted
Factor
Primary products
Bottle recyclate 1 Kg primary / kg recycled Primary PE/PVC/PET
Mixed plastics recyclate 10 Kg primary / kg recycled Concrete
IW films 1 Kg primary / kg recycled Primary PE
Crates and pallets 1 Kg primary / kg recycled Primary PP
RDF (cement kiln) 1.43 Kg primary / kg recycled Coal
Feedstock 0.97 Kg primary / kg recycled Fuel oil (heavy, S)
1)
Electricity output MSWI 1 MJ / MJ electricity UCPTE electricity
2)
Heat output MSWI 1 MJ / MJ heat UCPTE heat
Notes:
1) UCPTE electricity is according [18] generated from UCPTE coal power
(17.4%), UCPTE gas power (7.4 %) , UCPTE hydropower (16.4%), UCPTE
lignite power (7.8%), UCPTE nuclear power (40.3 %) and UCPTE oil power
(10.7 %) with 31 % average efficiency
2) UCPTE heat is assumed to be generated from UCPTE coal (30%), UCPTE gas
(30 %) and UCPTE oil (40%) with 90 % average thermal efficiency

4.5 Costs figures

Costs figures are based on one tonne plastics processed (collected, separated
etc.).According to literature (2, 11) costs figures in table 4.5.1, table 4.5.2 and ta-
ble 4.5.3 are used for calculations.

Table 4.5.1 Costs data collection.

Collection process/route EURO per

tonne output
MSW Black Bag 133
Bottle Bank 330
Grey Bag 178
Yellow Bag 592
IW Integral collection 100
Commercial film collection 60
crates & pallets collection 80
mixed commercial plastics collection 70
 TNO-report

46 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

Table 4.5.2 Costs data of separation and upgrading processes.

Route Flow EURO per

tonne output
Bot.bank Rec. Bottles 110
Grey bag RDF low 167
Grey bag Fines 167
Grey bag Feed & mixed plastics 630
Yellow bag Rec Bottles 630
Yellow bag Mixed film 590
Yellow bag Feed 630
Yellow bag RDF (cement kiln) 565
IW collection Commercial film 105
IW collection Crates & pallets 80
IW collection Mixed plastics 65

Table 4.5.3 Gate Fees of application processes.

Route Application process Gate fee 1)

EURO per
tonne input
Bottle bank MR Mechanical bottle recycling -50
Yellow bag MR Mechanical bottle recycling 0
Yellow bag MR Mechanical mixed film recycling 0
IW collection MR Mechanical PE/PP film recycling -165
IW collection MR Mechanical rigids recycling -200
IW collection MPR Fence (concrete substitution) 275
Grey bag MPR Fence (concrete substitution) 275
Yellow bag MPR Fence (concrete substitution) 275
Yellow bag FR Blast furnace (oil substitution) 250
Grey bag FR Blast furnace (oil substitution) 250
All ERhigh Cement kiln 100
All ERmswi MSWI 100
All Landf Landfill 50
1)
Because the LHV values of the different plastics do not show large differences it
is assumed the benefits of FR and ER applications are more or less independent
of composition.

The gate fees shown in table 4.5.3 represent a combination of costs data of appli-
cation and substitution processes. The gate fee is defined as costs of application
process (per ton application) minus the benefits of the specific products subtracted.
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 47 of 139

Some examples to illustrate the gate fee are:

Application costs (the costs of the recycling process) for PE/PP bottle recyclate
via the bottle bank route are about 450 Euro per tonne recyclate. Benefits are
500 Euro tonne recyclate (benefits by substituting virgin polymer). Gate fee is
calculated as 450 500 = -50 Euro per tonne recyclate, representing a revenue
(= net positive economical value) of 50 Euro per tonne recyclate.
Application costs for mixed plastics in the blast furnace process (FR) are about
450 Euro per tonne mixture, whereas the benefits are 200 Euro per tonne recy-
clate (benefits by substituting 970 kg heavy fuel oil). Gate fee is about 450
200 = 250 Euro per tonne mixture, representing costs (= net negative economi-
cal value) of 250 Euro per tonne mixture.
 TNO-report

48 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 49 of 139

5. Mass balances

This chapter contains the results of the mass balance calculations for routes and
scenarios. A more detailed explanation of the mass balance calculations is given in
appendix A.2. Recycling and recovery characteristics of routes are summarised in
table A4.1 up to Table A4.3 in appendix A4.
The starting points for the calculations are:
For each A type route the recycling potential is calculated for 0.718 kg MSW
packaging plastics.
For each B type route the recycling potential is calculated for 0.282 kg IW
packaging plastics.
The mass balances of the scenarios are based on combinations of the mass
balances of the routes, for 0.282 kg IW plastics and 0.718 kg MSW plastics.

During execution of the sensitivity analysis the impact of another energy recovery
option, ERhigh, on the mass balance is illustrated. These calculations are explained
in appendix A.6.

5.1 Mass balances of routes

5.1.1 A1: Black Bag collection (MSW)

Collection:
Total MSW packaging plastics (718 g) are integral collected in mixed MSW with
the black bag collection system.

Separation and upgrading:

The black bag content is not separated or upgraded and is transported to the appli-
cation location.

Application:
The black bag collected plastics are either landfilled or incinerated in a MSWI with
energy recovery (ERmswi).

A1: Black Bag collection MSW, total = 71.8%

ERmswi = 71.8% R = 0%
 TNO-report

50 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

5.1.2 A2: Bottle Bank collection (MSW)

Collection:
In MSW packaging plastics there are different types (PE/PP, PET, PS/EPS and
PVC) of bottles, according table 3.2.1. In relation with the FU of 1 kg packaging
plastics the 718 g MSW packaging plastics contain 187 g plastic bottles.
The consumers will bring a part of the non PVC type bottles to the collection point
(bottle bank). Bottle Bank collection will reduce in that way:
The absolute amount of MSW packaging plastics to be collected integrally
with MSW fractions.
The relative contribution of the bottle fraction in the resulting integral collected
MSW packaging plastics.
With a bottle bank response rate of 20% for resp. PE/PP, PS and PET type bottles
about 32 g bottles are collected per functional unit. The other 686 g MSW packag-
ing plastics are collected with the integral MSW and are not separated or upgraded
but directly transported to their application.

Separation and upgrading:

The 32 g Bottle Bank bottles are manually sorted in a sorting installation. The type
sorted bottles are pressed and transported to plastic recycling installations. The
sorting efficiency of the separation step is assumed to be about 92 %. After sorting
the total amount of secondary plastics (rec. bottles) for recycling per functional unit
is 30 g whereas as sorting residues (BB res.) 2 g plastics have to be transported to
the residual MSW processing (landfill or energy recovery in the MSWI).

Application:
Recycled plastics generated by bottle bank collection/sorting (rec. bottles) will
meet quality standards for mechanical recycling (MR). Integral collected plastics
and sorting residue (BB res.) are either landfilled or incinerated with energy recov-
ery in a MSWI.

A2: Bottle bank collection MSW, total = 71.8%

MR = 3.0%
ERmswi = 68.8% R = 3%

5.1.3 A3: Grey bag collection (MSW)

Collection:
The two bin or grey bag collection includes total MSW. There is 2% of the MSW
packaging plastics in the wet compartment and 98% percent in the dry compart-
ment.
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 51 of 139

Separation and upgrading:

Packaging plastics in the wet compartment of the grey bag system are sorted out
manually and transferred to the dry fraction processing. The mechanical separation
of the dry fraction (sieving, sifting, pulping and upgrading) results in the following
fractions:
= 333 g mixed plastics fraction (main flow)
= 294 g plastics in the Low RDF (Refuse Derived Fuel) fraction
= 71 g plastics in the fines fraction
= 16 g plastics in the residue of the upgrading
= 4 g in the paper fraction out of the pulper.

Application:

The mixed plastics fraction will meet quality standards for mixed plastics recycling
(MPR) or feedstock recycling (FR). RDF low, fines and residue of the upgrading
(UPGR res.) are either landfilled or incinerated with energy recovery in a MSWI
(a default option).

A3: Grey bag collection MSW, total = 71.8%

MPR or FR = 33.3%
ERmswi = 38.5% R = 33.3%

5.1.4 A4: Bottle bank combined with grey bag system (MSW)

Collection:
Consumers bring (a part) of all PE/PP and PET type bottles to the bottle bank. With
a bottle bank response rate of 20% 32 g bottles per functional unit are collected and
the other 686 g MSW packaging plastics are collected by a grey bag system.

Separation and upgrading:

With a sorting efficiency of 92% the bottle bank bottles are manually sorted, by
type. About 30 g secondary plastics are sorted out and 2 g sorting residues are
transported to the residual MSW processing. The grey bin packaging plastics are
mechanically separated (sieving, sifting, pulping and upgrading) and the following
fractions are produced:
= 30 g recycled bottle plastics (rec. bottles)
= 2 g residue from bottle bank (BB res.)
= 327 g (main flow) mixed plastics
= 273 g plastics in the RDF low (Refuse Derived Fuel)
= 66 g in the fines fraction
= 16 g in the residue of the upgrading process
= 3 g in the paper fraction from the pulper.
 TNO-report

52 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

Application:
Recycled plastics generated after bottle bank collection will meet the quality stan-
dards for mechanical recycling (MR). The mixed plastics fraction separated out of
the grey bin fraction (feed) will meet the quality standards for mixed plastics recy-
cling (MPR) or feedstock recycling (FR). RDF low, fines and the upgrading resi-
due (UPGR res.) and bottle bank residue (BB res.) are either landfilled or incine-
rated with energy recovery in a MSWI (default option).

A4: Bottle bank plus grey bag collection MSW, total = 71.8%
MR = 3.0%
MPR or FR = 32.7%
ERmswi = 36.1% R = 3 % + 32.7% = 35.7%
Note:
The reference scenario NOW is constructed a.o. by an adapted route A4 (A4NOW)
This adapted route has a limited separation (until sifter and elimination of the pulper)
and the output is 346 g sifted RDF high with destination energy recovery (ERhigh)
Other plastics output fractions are 30 g recycled bottle plastics (rec. bottles), 2 g
residue from bottle bank (BB res.), 273 g plastics in the RDF low and 66 g in the fines
fraction.

5.1.5 A5: Yellow bag collection (MSW)

Collection:
Yellow bag collection concerns all plastic packaging waste in MSW (718 g plas-
tics). In Germany the reported yellow bag collection response rates are up to 80%.
In this study the average European response rate is assumed to be 67%. Conse-
quently 481 g of MSW packaging plastics are collected by a yellow bag system.
The rest of the (237 g) MSW packaging plastics are collected with the other MSW
components ( non yellow bag fractions).

Separation and upgrading:

Yellow bag collected packaging plastics are sorted out manually from other yellow
bag recyclables (beverage cartons, metal packaging) with a relatively high separa-
tion efficiency (> 95%). Mechanical upgrading of the manual sorted fractions will
result in 115 g bottle fraction (Rec.Bottles), 104 g mixed films fraction (Mixed
film) and 241 g mixed plastics fraction (feed). The two last mentioned fractions are
agglomerated before application.
Finally about 18 g of the collected plastics is processed as a residual fraction (Sort-
ing res.) whereas also the metal packaging fraction is assumed to contain some
plastics (4 g). The 237 g packaging plastics in integral collected MSW are not
separated or upgraded.
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 53 of 139

Application:
The generated bottle fraction from the yellow bag system (Rec. Bottles) will meet
the quality standards for mechanical recycling (MR). Generally the mixed films
fraction (Mixed fim) is directed to MPR application and the mixed plastics fraction
(feed) meets the targets for FR purposes. Integral collected plastics (MSW residual)
are either landfilled or incinerated with energy recovery in a MSWI.

A5: Yellow bag collection MSW, total = 71.8%

MR = 11.5%
MPR = 10.4%
FR = 24.1%
ERmswi = 25.8% R = 11.5% + 10.4% + 24.1% = 46%

5.1.6 B1: Integral collection (IW)

Collection:
Total IW packaging plastics (282 g) are integral collected with other IW fractions.

Separation and upgrading:

The integral collected IW packaging plastics are not separated or upgraded but
transported to application location.

Application:
Integral collected IW packaging plastics are either landfilled or incinerated in a
MSWI with energy recovery.

B1: Integral collection IW, total = 28.2%

ERmswi = 28.2% R = 0%

5.1.7 B2: Separate collection of commercial films and rigids (IW)

Collection:
282 g IW packaging plastics contain about 162 g PE/PP films and about 75 g
valuable rigids (crates and pallets). Separate collection of films and valuable rigids
in the European area occurs with the assumed response rates of 52% resp. 67%.
Out of the total amount of 282 g IW packaging plastics about 84 g films and 50 g
valuable rigids are collected separately for separation and mechanical recycling
purposes. The resulting 149 g IW packaging plastics are integral collected with
other IW fractions.
 TNO-report

54 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

Separation and upgrading:

Separately collected 84 g films and 50 g rigids are manually sorted in a sorting in-
stallation followed by regranulation. The total efficiency of sorting and upgrading
is assumed to be 90%. Recycled secondary plastics are 75 g from films (IND films)
and 45 g from rigids (IND rigids).
Separation residue (sep.res.) is intended for MSWI or landfill.
The residual integral collected 148 g IW packaging plastics are not separated and
with the other IW waste fractions transported to their application.

Application:
The recyclable films can be applied for the production of commercial films where-
as the recycled PE/PP rigids can be directed to commercial crate and pallet produc-
tion. Integral collected plastics are either landfilled or incinerated with energy
recovery in a MSWI.

B2: separate collection of films+ rigids IW, total = 28.2%

MR = 12.0%
ERmswi = 16.2% R = 12%

5.1.8 B3: Maximal separate collection of commercial plastics (IW)

Collection:
Next to recycled commercial films and valuable rigids (crates and pallets) the IW
plastics fraction has an additional potential for source separate collection of mixed
plastics (PE/PP). In this study it is assumed that next to the collection of 84 g films
and 50 g rigids an additional amount of 74 g IW mixed plastics is separately col-
lected for mixed plastics (MPR) purposes.

Separation and upgrading:

Separately collected 84 g films and 50 g valuable rigids are sorted manually where-
as 74 g mixed plastics are separated mechanically. The total amounts of regene-
rated secondary plastics are 75 g from commercial films, 45 g from rigids and
67 gram mixed plastics.
The integral collected IW packaging plastics (74 g) are not separated.

Application:
The recyclable films can be applied for the production of commercial films where-
as the recycled rigids are directed to commercial crate or pallet production. Mixed
plastics are directed to MPR applications.
Integral collected plastics are either landfilled or incinerated with energy recovery
in a MSWI.
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 55 of 139

B3: Maximal separate collection IW, total = 28.2%

(films, rigids and mixed plastics)
MR = 12.0%
MPR = 6.7 %
ERmswi = 9.5 % R = 12.0 % + 6,7 % = 18.7 %

5.2 Scenarios

For each scenario at least one route of the processing of packaging plastics in
MSW has to be combined with at least one route of the processing of packaging
plastics in IW (100 % MSW and 100% IW).

5.2.1 Reference scenarios

The reference scenario landfill consists of route A1 (black bag) for packaging plas-
tics in MSW and route B1 (integral collection) for IW packaging plastics. The
application MSWI is substituted by the application landfill.

Reference scenario Landfill

MSW
100% of route A1 with landfill instead of ERmswi

IW
100% of route B1 with landfill instead of ERmswi

The reference scenario NOW consists of combinations of routes, as well as for

MSW as for IW packaging plastics. The application MSWI is for the main part
substituted by the application landfill. The set up of the NOW scenario is the fol-
lowing:
 TNO-report

56 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

Reference scenario NOW

MSW
56.0% of route A1 with landfill instead of ER mswi
20.0% of route A2 with landfill instead of ER mswi
5.75% of route A2 with ERMSWI
5.75% of route A4 with ERhigh instead of MR and MPR and ERmswi for re-
sidual flows
12.5% of route A5 with ERMSWI

IW
31.0% of route B1 with landfill instead of ER mswi
45.0% of route B2 with landfill instead of ER mswi
24.0% of route B2 with ERMSWI

5.2.2 Recycling scenarios

For the procedure of building the scenarios, see 2.2.3.

The starting point for the construction of the recycling scenarios I, II, III and IV is
the inclusion of at least route B2. The separate collection and processing of com-
mercial films and rigids out of IW is from the economic point of view the preferred
MR option. A further increase in recycling will be realised by a combination of
routes for MSW packaging plastics as well as route B3 for IW packaging plastics.

To match exactly the recycling figures of the scenarios as presented in table 2.2.3
some output flows of the described routes in 5.2.1. are shifted. Some MR is redi-
rected to FR or MPR, whereas some FR is redirected to MPR All routes and recy-
cling figures are presented in appendix A4, in table A4.1 up to A4.3.

Scenario I
(15% MR and 85% ERmswi)
When route B2 is combined with route A2 (for MSW) the targets 15% MR and
85% ERMSWI are realised.

Scenario I ( = R15)

MSW
100% of route A2

IW
100% of route B2
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 57 of 139

Scenarios II, III and IV are built up as an extension of the so-called base scenario
I , regarding the recycling level. Mostly the increase of recycling is realised by the
packaging plastics recycling out of MSW. The distinguishing principle then is the
source collection via a yellow bag system or a grey bag system.

A: Increasing recycling of MSW by Yellow Bag collection:

Scenario II, yellow bag system

(15% MR, 10% FR and 75% ERmswi)
A bottle bank system is not needed when a yellow bag collection system is se-
lected. The aim of the application of this system is to collect all MSW packaging
plastics, bottles inclusive. In that case the realisation of 15% MR is a combination
of route A5 (3% MR) and route B2 (12% MR).
Route A5 has a recycling potential of 11.5% for MR and 34.5% for FR + MPR. To
realise 3 % MR only a small part (3%/11.5%= 26.1%) of route A5 fulfils this aim.
At the same time 26.1% * 34.5% = 9% FR is realised with the application of route
A5, whereas 10 % FR is the criterium. Route A5 is shifted to A5R25y with 10.8%
MR and 35.2 % FR. In that case 28.3 % of route A5R25y realises 3 % MR and 10
% FR. By the application of route A1 the rest of the MSW packaging plastics are
processed (100% - 28.3= 71.7%).

Scenario II, yellow bag system (= R25y)

MSW
28.3% of route A5 (shifted to A5R25y)
71.7% of route A1

IW
100% of route B2

Scenario III, yellow bag system

(15% MR, 10% FR, 10% MPR and 35% ERmswi)
Route A5 has a potential of 11.5% for MR and a potential of 34.5 % for FR/MPR.
The target 20% FR + MPR could be realised by the application of 20/34.5 = 58.0%
of route A5, which is combined with 58/100* 11.5% = 6.7 % MR. A shift of route
A5 to A5R35y (5.5 % MR 5,5 % FR/MPR) results in 6 % MR, 20.2% MPR,
20.2% FR and 49.5% of route A5R35y satisfies the required targets. By the appli-
cation of route A1 the rest of the MSW packaging plastics are processed (100% -
49.5= 50.5%).
 TNO-report

58 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

Scenario III, yellow bag system (= R35y)

MSW
50.5% of route A1
49.5% of route A5 (shifted to A5R35y)

IW
100% of route B2

Scenario IV, yellow bag system

(15% MR, 15% FR, 20% MPR and 50% ERmswi)
Route A5 has a recycling potential of 34.5% for FR + MPR. This means that for
the realisation of the target 35% FR + MPR the application of route A5 is not suffi-
cient. But the shift of route A5 to A5R50y (for instance with 7,9 % MR 7,9 %
MPR) increases the FR + MPR potential. Route A5R50y has 3.6% MR, 24.4%
MPR and 18.2% FR.. With 82.2% application of route A5R50y the targets of sce-
nario IV will be satisfied. The resulting 17.8% (= 100% - 82.2%) of the MSW
packaging plastics are processed via route A1.

Scenario IV, yellow bag system ( = R50y)

MSW
82.2% of route A5 (shifted to A5R50y)
17.8% of route A1

IW
100% of route B2

B: Increasing recycling of MSW by Grey Bag collection:

Scenario II, grey bag system

(15% MR, 10% FR and 75 % ERmswi)
Route A4 with R =35.7% has a MR potential of 3% and a potential of 32.7% for
FR and/or MPR. On behalf of the realisation of the 10% FR target of scenario II a
part of 10/32.7 = 30.6% of route A4 satisfies. Route A2 with R = 3% has also a
potential of 3% MR out of MSW and so the residual 69.4 % (= 100% - 30.6%) col-
lection of MSW is contributed via route A2.
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 59 of 139

Scenario II, grey bag system (= R25g)

MSW
30.6% of route A4
69.4% of route A2

IW
100% of route B2

Scenario III, grey bag system

(15% MR, 10% MPR, 10% FR and 65% ERmswi)
On behalf of the realisation of the 10% FR and 10% MPR targets a part of 20/32.7
= 61.2% of route A4 satisfies. Route A4 is shifted to A4R35g with 16.35% MPR
and 16.35% FR. An additional contribution of 38.8% of route A2 fulfils the 3%
MR target for MSW packaging plastics.

Scenario III, grey bag system (= R35g)

MSW
61.2% of route A4 (shifted to A4R35g)
38.8% of route A2

IW
100% of route B2

Scenario IV, grey bag system

(15% MR, 20% MPR, 15% FR and 50% ERmswi)
Route A4 with a recycling potential of 32,7% cannot realise the combined targets
15% FR and 20% MPR without additional effort. In combination with route B2
route A4 shows a lack of 2.3% for FR + MPR (= 35% -32.7%). Route A4 is shifted
to A4R50g with 15% FR and 17.7% MPR. Combination of A4R50g with route B3
will result in an additional FR + MPR potential of 6.7%. To realise the FR + MPR
target of scenario IV consequently 34.3% (= 2,3/6.7) of route B3 has to be incorpo-
rated. Application of 65.7% of route B2 realises the complete picture of scenario
IV.
 TNO-report

60 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

Scenario IV, grey bag system (= R50g)

MSW
100% of route A4 (shifted to A4R50g)

IW
65.7 % of route B2
34.3% of route B3
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 61 of 139

6. Inventory

6.1 Inventory of environmental data

6.1.1 Inventory items

The basis for the environmental inventory analysis of the scenarios is an in-
put/output analysis of all foreground processes (the individual collection, separa-
tion and application processes). Regarding the input/output items of foreground
processes the following aspects can be distinguished:
1. Input of or output to other foreground processes
2. Input of or output to background processes
3. Environment items (emissions, waste, depletions)

The overview of input/output items for foreground process is shown in the (quanti-
tative) process descriptions presented in appendix A.2 and A.3 of this report.
The data related to items as electricity consumption, transports, input of auxiliaries
or substituted primary plastics give an indication to which degree background
processes are linked to the foreground processes.

The final inventory step includes a summary of all material and energy flows
across the boundary of the systems under study, that are emissions to water and air,
depletions of environmental resources and environmental loads by final waste de-
posits. In this context every link to background processes is translated to environ-
mental items with the help of a background database. Every link has some addi-
tional environmental load or some additional environmental benefit for the ob-
served route.

As a consequence the choice of the background database is an important aspect of

the environmental analysis. Background processes in this study are derived from
the APME database (17), in the case of primary plastics production and from the
BUWAL 250 database (18), in the case of production of fuels, energy conversion
and transport processes.
Appendix A.5 gives an overview of all background processes used in this study and
the corresponding background data.

Appendix B.1 gives a detailed list of all inventory items derived from foreground
and/or background processes.
 TNO-report

62 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

6.1.2 Remarks concerning the inventory items

The data of the foreground processes are related to the time period as mentioned in
chapter 2.3. In general it concerns the data of the period 1990-1999.
An exception has to be made for landfill. The landfill application generates emis-
sions during a time period of 100 years after the dumping of plastic wastes (system
boundary landfill: see appendix A.3).

Special attention is given to the completeness of the data in this study:

Foreground data and their references are summarised in the appendices A.2,
A.3 and A.6 of this report. Some specific data of foreground processes are
missing, because of the incompleteness of the literature sources. For instance
the water emissions caused by cleaning of the plastics for MR. The conse-
quences of these missing data are marginal as far as known.
For the background processes for transport, fuel and energy production the
process data from BUWAL 250 are used (18). For the production of primary
plastics the published data of APME (17) are used. Because BUWAL 250 also
incorporates these APME data most background processes in this study corre-
spond with those described in the BUWAL 250 study.1)
Background processes are reported in appendix A.5.

Remark:
In the BUWAL 250 study only aggregated data of energy conversion processes are
reported. The corresponding so-called precombustion data for fuels (natural gas,
oil and coal) are not reported. TNO has recalculated the fuel data (see appendix
A.5) with the information given by the reference mentioned in the BUWAL 250
study.

6.1.3 Classification of inventory items

Life cycle impact assessment is performed as described in chapter 2.6. The classifi-
cation of inventory items result in scores of 9 impact categories and 3 special cate-
gories of environmental aspects (see table 2.6)

6.2 Inventory of costs data

The basis for conducting a costs inventory of the scenarios and routes is a costs
calculation for individual (state of the art) processes. Per route and per scenario
these costs are summarised (appendix B3 and B4).

1)
For the production of primary plastics the BUWAL 250 data are not applied, but
the original APME data. This inconsistency is of minor relevance, because all re-
cycling scenarios include an amount of 15% MR (substitution of primary plas-
tics), so possibly differences between scenarios are leveled out.
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 63 of 139

Figures 6.2.1a and 6.2.1b show the results of the costs inventory of the different
scenarios. The scenarios with an increasing R illustrate an increase in costs, which
are only partly compensated by an increase in benefits. Furthermore the following
remarks can be made:
The collection costs obviously increase with increasing R, especially for the
yellow bag scenarios.
The costs of separation and application increase with increasing R. Regarding
these activities the yellow bag scenarios as well as the grey bag scenarios show
comparable costs.
Scenarios R50 and R35 do not show more economical value being created by
substitution compared to scenario R25, despite substantial extra costs being in-
volved; both the yellow bag scenarios as the grey bag scenarios show this phe-
nomenon.

The costs difference between comparable grey bag and yellow bag scenarios is
caused by differences in collection costs. Application of mixed plastics as concrete
substitute does not result in an increase of the benefits compared with the benefits
of energy use of waste incineration.
 TNO-report

64 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

0 .9 0
C O S T S t o t a l ( Eu r o / k g p la s t ic )

0 .7 5

0 .6 0

0 .4 5 s u b s titu tio n

a p p lic a tio n
0 .3 0
s e p a r a tio n

c o lle c tio n
0 .1 5

0 .0 0

- 0 .1 5
la n d f NO W R1 5 R2 5 y R3 5 y R5 0 y R2 5 g R3 5 g R5 0 g
s c e n a r io

Figure 6.2.1a Results costs inventory : contribution per step.

0.90

0.75
COSTS total (Euro/ kg plastic)

0.60

0.45

0.30

0.15

0.00

-0.15
landf NOW R15 R25y R35y R50y R25g R35g R50g
scenario

Figure 6.2.1b Results costs inventory : total (complete system)

TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 65 of 139

7. Impact assessment

The estimation of the environmental load of each of the classified impact catego-
ries (characterisation) will be carried out starting from the list of inventory items of
the scenarios (chapter 6). The characterisation factors are described in appendix
B.2.

In order to discuss the results the separate scenarios are compared with each other
per impact whereas the scores of the scenarios are divided in:
A. Collection: impacts from collection,
B. Separation: impacts from separation and upgrading
C. Application: impacts from application processes
D. Substitution: impacts as a consequence of the substitution of products.

The complete results of all scenario options (inclusive the calculated options as a
part of the sensitivity analysis) are listed in appendix B.5.
An overview of the results of the environmental effects EDP, GWP, POCP, AP,
and the environmental aspects FW, TW and ENER are reported in this chapter.
After normalisation these items have the greatest contribution to the environmental
load (chapter 8).
 TNO-report

66 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

0 .1 0

0 .0 5
ED P s c o r e ( E+ 1 5 / ( M J .y) )

0 .0 0

- 0 .0 5 s u b s titu tio n

a p p lic a tio n
- 0 .1 0
s e p a r a tio n

c o lle c tio n
- 0 .1 5

- 0 .2 0

- 0 .2 5
la n d f NO W R1 5 R2 5 y R3 5 y R5 0 y R2 5 g R3 5 g R5 0 g
s c e n a r io

Figure 7.1 Environmental impact assessment:

Characterisation EDP (depletion fuel resources).

Except landfill all scenarios contribute to the net decrease of the EDP load. This
decrease in EDP load for these scenarios is mainly caused by the substitution step,
because of the substitution of energy and materials. It is remarkable that starting
with R25 the EDP saving decreases to some extent with increasing R value. Two
reasons can be given:
The increase of the content MPR looking at R35 and R50 together with a de-
crease of ERmswi does not result in more energy saving than the amount realised
by the incineration of packaging plastics.
In the case of MPR for R35 and R50 most of the extra saved energy source
compared to R25 is coal (regarding MPR and the cement kiln for concrete pro-
duction). Because of the enormous stocks the saving of coal hardly reduces the
EDP load. R25 has a greater EDP reduction by the greater share in application
of a MSWI, because in that case the saving of the relatively scarce sources oil
and gas occurs.

Figure 7.1 shows that with an increase of the R value the net EDP saving decreases
because of the increase of the separation step EDP load. This increase is greater for
the grey bag scenarios than for the yellow bag scenarios. The extensive mechanical
separation, as part of the grey bag system, is the cause for the higher energy con-
sumption.
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 67 of 139

0 .0 2

0 .0 1

EN ER s c o r e ( GJ )
0 .0 0

s u b s titu tio n
- 0 .0 1 a p p lic a tio n

s e p a r a tio n
- 0 .0 2 c o lle c tio n

- 0 .0 3

- 0 .0 4
la n d f NO W R1 5 R2 5 y R3 5 y R5 0 y R2 5 g R3 5 g R5 0 g
s c e n a r io

Figure 7.2 Environmental impact assessment:

Characterisation ENER (primary energy requirement).

Comparable with EDP also for ENER a reduction of the environmental load exist
for all scenarios except landfill. Substitution of primary products causes the saving
of energy, regarding the processes of the scenarios.
Starting with R25 an increase of the R value does not result in a decrease of ENER
for the application step. The reason for this difference compared with EDP
(figure 7.1) is that scarcity of energy sources is not incorporated for judgement of
ENER.

Figure 7.2 shows for increasing R values an increase of ENER for the separation
step. This increase is greater for the grey bag scenarios than for the yellow bag sce-
narios (comparable with EDP). The contribution of the separation step causes a
small decrease of the total ENER saving, starting from R25, when the R value in-
creases.
 TNO-report

68 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

3 .0

2 .5

2 .0
GW P s c o r e ( k g C O 2 )

1 .5

1 .0 s u b s titu tio n

a p p lic a tio n
0 .5
s e p a r a tio n
0 .0 c o lle c tio n

- 0 .5

- 1 .0

- 1 .5
la n d f NO W R1 5 R2 5 y R3 5 y R5 0 y R2 5 g R3 5 g R5 0 g
s c e n a r io

Figure 7.3 Environmental impact assessment:

Characterisation GWP (global warming potential).

The picture for GWP shows an increase of the environmental load for all the sce-
narios. The application step causes this notable increase. For landfill the amount of
CO2 (and also CH4) emissions is relatively small, because during the considered
period of landfill only a very small part of the plastics (5%) is degraded.

Regarding the separation step figure 7.3 shows the GWP load slowly increases
with higher R value. This enlargement is greater for the grey bag scenarios than for
the yellow bag scenarios. Also this aspect has to be related to the increase of the
energy consumption (gives more CO2 emissions), because of the application of
mechanical separation in the case of the grey bag system.

Regarding the application step and starting with R15 an increase of R value (de-
crease of ERmswi) will decrease the GWP load. In other words the introduction of
MPR and FR achieves an obvious reduction of GWP, because the extent of MSW
incineration is lowered.

Regarding all scenarios the CO2 emissions developed during collection, separation
and especially application are not compensated by the saved CO2 emissions of sub-
stitution. Starting with R15 an increase of R value (decrease of ER mswi) results in
some decrease of the GWP load.
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 69 of 139

0 .0 0 1 0

0 .0 0 0 5

P O CP s c ore ( k g C2 H4 )
0 .0 0 0 0

- 0 .0 0 0 5 s u b s titu tio n

a p p lic a tio n
- 0 .0 0 1 0
s e p a r a tio n

c o lle c tio n
- 0 .0 0 1 5

- 0 .0 0 2 0

- 0 .0 0 2 5
la n d f NO W R1 5 R2 5 y R3 5 y R5 0 y R2 5 g R3 5 g R5 0 g
s c e n a r io

Figure 7.4 Environmental impact assessment:

Characterisation POCP (photochemical smog potential).

Except landfill all the scenarios generate a net reduction of the environmental load
regarding POCP. The substitution of primary products results in a reduction of
POCP. The reduced POCP load can be related to a decrease of the hydrocarbon
emissions, which arise during the production of primary monomers and plastics as
well as during the production of feedstock and fuels (refineries, exploration and
mining).
For all the scenarios the collection obviously contribute to the POCP load. This
contribution can be correlated to the hydrocarbon emissions generated during
transport (exhaust gas) and during the production of transport fuel (diesel).
Figure 7.4 shows the POCP load for collection will be higher in the case of the yel-
low bag system compared with the grey bag system; the difference in transport dis-
tances is the reason for that (see appendix A.2).

Figure 7.4 shows also that the increase of POCP saving with increasing R value is
caused by the substitution of ER mswi by MR and FR. Comparison of R25 with R35
illustrates that replacement of ERmswi by MPR results in no extra POCP savings.
 TNO-report

70 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

0 .0 0 8

0 .0 0 4
AP s c ore ( k g S O 2 )

0 .0 0 0
s u b s titu tio n

a p p lic a tio n

- 0 .0 0 4 s e p a r a tio n

c o lle c tio n

- 0 .0 0 8

- 0 .0 1 2
la n d f NO W R1 5 R2 5 y R3 5 y R5 0 y R2 5 g R3 5 g R5 0 g
s c e n a r io

Figure 7.5 Environmental impact assessment:

Characterisation AP (acidification potential).

The AP picture is comparable with the POCP one. Except for landfill all scenarios
achieve a reduction of the AP environmental load. The substitution of primary
products is the reason for this. The (avoided) AP load has to be related to the SO2
and NOx emissions; these emissions arise during the production of primary plastics
and during the production of feedstock and fuels (refineries, exploration and min-
ing).
Figure 7.5 shows that the avoided AP load (substitution step) does not increase
with rising R value of the sequential scenarios. The increase of R because of the
replacement of ERmswi by MR and FR does not result in a extra reduction of the AP
load.

All the scenarios demonstrate an obvious contribution of the collection step to AP.
This is originated by the NOx emissions during transport (exhaust gas) and by the
SO2 emissions during the production of the transport fuel (diesel).
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 71 of 139

1 .0

0 .9

0 .8

FW s c o r e (k g f in a l w a s te ) 0 .7

0 .6
s u b s titu tio n
0 .5
a p p lic a tio n
0 .4
s e p a r a tio n
0 .3
c o lle c tio n
0 .2

0 .1

0 .0

- 0 .1
la n d f NO W R1 5 R2 5 y R3 5 y R5 0 y R2 5 g R3 5 g R5 0 g
s c e n a r io

Figure 7.6 Environmental impact assessment:

Characterisation FW (final waste).

In comparison with the preceding figures 7.1 up to 7.5 inclusive FW in figure 7.6
shows a discriminative picture.
Regarding the scenarios it appears that the FW load is generated by the application
step! Especially the both reference scenarios with landfill (landfill and NOW) re-
sult in a considerable FW load. The FW load of the residual scenarios is relatively
small. For instance the incineration of the packaging plastics leads to a small con-
tribution to the FW load by the small amount of bottom ashes.
Also the avoided FW load elsewhere (substitution step) because of the substitution
of primary products is relatively small (see figure 7.6). It is assumed that the
avoided coal mining waste as result of the partial substitution of coal winning is not
interpreted (classified) as FW load. The assumption not classifying coal mining
waste is in agreement with starting points of other LCA studies (such as (5)).
 TNO-report

72 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

0 .0 6
T W s c o r e ( k g h a z a r d o u s f in a l w a s te )

0 .0 5

0 .0 4

0 .0 3 s u b s titu tio n

a p p lic a tio n
0 .0 2
s e p a r a tio n

c o lle c tio n
0 .0 1

0 .0 0

- 0 .0 1
la n d f NO W R1 5 R2 5 y R3 5 y R5 0 y R2 5 g R3 5 g R5 0 g
s c e n a r io

Figure 7.7 Environmental impact assessment:

Characterisation TW (final specific waste).

As with the FW load (figure 7.6) to a large extent also the TW load appears to
come from the application step. Contrary to the FW load the TW load is not gener-
ated by landfill, but by the application of the MSWI. The MSWI creates flue gas
cleaning residues and to lesser extent fly ash with a contribution to TW. Especially
the incineration of plastics with a high Cl content (PVC) results in a obvious TW
load.

Scenarios with an increasing R value show a decrease of the TW load. A reduction

of the share of ERmswi is the reason for this. With increasing R a bigger part of PVC
is processed in MR and FR operations.
Comparison of the yellow bag systems with the grey bag systems leads to the con-
clusion that the grey bag systems generate a slightly higher TW load. The separa-
tion step of the grey bag systems results in a concentration of the PVC plastics (es-
pecially bottles) in specific fractions (fines and low RDF),which are processed
in a MSWI. Application of yellow bag systems achieves feeds for MR, MPR and
FR operations with a greater Cl content; compared with grey bag systems less Cl
containing plastics are then incinerated.

Regarding R35 and R50 also the contribution of the application step to TW is
originated by MSWI. MPR substitution generates plastic products (e.g. fences, as a
substitute for concrete), which are incinerated in a MSWI after discarding to an ex-
tent of 50%. The resulting flue gas cleaning residues are indicated as an extra TW
load for substitution in figure 7.7.
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 73 of 139

15

10

A E T P s c o r e (m 3 a e t p ) 5

0
s u b s titu tio n
-5 a p p lic a tio n

s e p a r a tio n
-10
c o lle c tio n
-15

-20

-25
la n d f NO W R1 5 R2 5 y R3 5 y R5 0 y R2 5 g R3 5 g R5 0 g
s c e n a r io

Figure 7.8 Environmental impact assessment:

Characterisation AETP (aquatic ecotoxicity potential).

Roughly the comparison of the AETP load of the different scenarios agrees with
that of the AP load (figure 7.5). Except landfill all scenarios achieve a reduction of
the net AETP load. The substitution of primary products leads to this AETP saving.
Especially the background processes play an important role in this case. The
(avoided) AETP load appears to be reduced to the (avoidance of the) load of heavy
metal emissions (especially nickel). As well as the mining emissions to water (es-
pecially for the oil and coal winning) as the emissions to air (for the sequential en-
ergy conversion) play an important role regarding this environmental aspect.

Compared with MR and FR, ERmswi substitutes background processes with more
heavy metal emissions; that is why increasing R results in a decrease of avoided
AETP. The energy consumption (electricity) of the separation and application steps
cause an increase in AETP when the R value increases; more of these activities are
applied when more R is activated. Also this phenomenon can be related to more
application of the already mentioned background processes.
 TNO-report

74 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 75 of 139

8. Evaluation

The relative environmental load (normalised impacts) is calculated from the abso-
lute environmental load (characterised impacts, chapter 7) with the help of nor-
malisation factors (reference framework is Europe). The applied normalisation fac-
tors are described in chapter 2.7 (table 2.7).
The normalisation results are presented in two ways, in the form of detailed bar
charts in chapter 8.1 and in the form of bar charts in chapter 8.2. Chapters 8.3 and
8.4 describe the results of respectively the dominance analysis and the sensitivity
analysis. The sensitivity analysis is only performed on the environmental aspects
and not on the costs.

8.1 Normalised Environmental Impacts

The normalised results of the aspects EDP, GWP, POCP, AP, FW, TW, ENER and
AETP are separately given in the figures 8.1.1 up to figure 8.1.8 inclusive. For all
the scenarios these aspects in normalised form relatively give the greatest contribu-
tion to the environmental load. In figure 8.1.1 up to figure 8.1.8 inclusive the fol-
lowing differentiation of each scenario is made (comparable with the illustration of
the bar charts in chapter 7):
collection processes
separation processes
application processes
consequences of the substituted (avoided) processes

The scale size of the axes in figure 8.1.1 up to figure 8.1.8 inclusive are all compa-
rable. The mutual comparison shows that for all scenarios especially FW and TW
have the greatest relative contribution to the environmental load. The contribution
of the scenarios to AETP. AP, EDP, ENER and POCP is mainly realised by the
substituted processes. Application processes dominate the contribution to FW, TW
and GWP for all scenarios. Collection and separation have a relatively small con-
tribution to the environmental load; this remark was already made during the ex-
planation of the characterised impacts (chapter 7).

In figure 8.1.1 up to figure 8.1.8 also the net contribution (of the total system; the
different stages are added) to the specific environmental themes are illustrated.
 TNO-report

76 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

5 .0 E- 0 4

4 .0 E- 0 4

3 .0 E- 0 4
n o r m a lis e d ED P s c o r e

2 .0 E- 0 4

1 .0 E- 0 4
s u b s titu tio n
0 .0 E+ 0 0 a p p lic a tio n

- 1 .0 E- 0 4 s e p a r a tio n

- 2 .0 E- 0 4 c o lle c tio n

- 3 .0 E- 0 4

- 4 .0 E- 0 4

- 5 .0 E- 0 4
la n d f NO W R1 5 R2 5 y R3 5 y R5 0 y R2 5 g R3 5 g R5 0 g
s c e n a r io

Figure 8.1.1a Environmental impact assessment:

Normalised Fuel depletion (EDP) per step.

5 .0 E- 0 4

4 .0 E- 0 4

3 .0 E- 0 4
n o r m a lis e d EDP s c o r e

2 .0 E- 0 4

1 .0 E- 0 4

0 .0 E+ 0 0

- 1 .0 E- 0 4

- 2 .0 E- 0 4

- 3 .0 E- 0 4

- 4 .0 E- 0 4

- 5 .0 E- 0 4
la n d f NO W R1 5 R2 5 y R3 5 y R5 0 y R2 5 g R3 5 g R5 0 g
s c e n a r io

Figure 8.1.1b Environmental impact assessment:

Normalised Fuel depletion (EDP), total.
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 77 of 139

5 .0 E- 0 4

4 .0 E- 0 4

3 .0 E- 0 4
n o r m a lis e d EN ER s c o r e
2 .0 E- 0 4

1 .0 E- 0 4
s u b s titu tio n
0 .0 E+ 0 0 a p p lic a tio n

- 1 .0 E- 0 4 s e p a r a tio n

- 2 .0 E- 0 4 c o lle c tio n

- 3 .0 E- 0 4

- 4 .0 E- 0 4

- 5 .0 E- 0 4
la n d f NO W R1 5 R2 5 y R3 5 y R5 0 y R2 5 g R3 5 g R5 0 g
s c e n a r io

Figure 8.1.2a Environmental impact assessment:

Normalised energy requirement (ENER) per step.

5 .0 E- 0 4

4 .0 E- 0 4

3 .0 E- 0 4
n o r m a lis e d ENER s c o r e

2 .0 E- 0 4

1 .0 E- 0 4

0 .0 E+ 0 0

- 1 .0 E- 0 4

- 2 .0 E- 0 4

- 3 .0 E- 0 4

- 4 .0 E- 0 4

- 5 .0 E- 0 4
la n d f NO W R1 5 R2 5 y R3 5 y R5 0 y R2 5 g R3 5 g R5 0 g
s c e n a r io

Figure 8.1.2b Environmental impact assessment:

Normalised energy requirement (ENER), total.
 TNO-report

78 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

5 .0 E- 0 4

4 .0 E- 0 4

3 .0 E- 0 4
n o r m a lis e d GW P s c o r e

2 .0 E- 0 4

1 .0 E- 0 4
s u b s titu tio n
0 .0 E+ 0 0 a p p lic a tio n

- 1 .0 E- 0 4 s e p a r a tio n

- 2 .0 E- 0 4 c o lle c tio n

- 3 .0 E- 0 4

- 4 .0 E- 0 4

- 5 .0 E- 0 4
la n d f NO W R1 5 R2 5 y R3 5 y R5 0 y R2 5 g R3 5 g R5 0 g
s c e n a r io

Figure 8.1.3a Environmental impact assessment:

Normalised global warming potential (GWP) per step.

5 .0 E- 0 4

4 .0 E- 0 4

3 .0 E- 0 4
n o r m a lis e d G W P s c o r e

2 .0 E- 0 4

1 .0 E- 0 4

0 .0 E+ 0 0

- 1 .0 E- 0 4

- 2 .0 E- 0 4

- 3 .0 E- 0 4

- 4 .0 E- 0 4

- 5 .0 E- 0 4
la n d f NO W R1 5 R2 5 y R3 5 y R5 0 y R2 5 g R3 5 g R5 0 g
s c e n a r io

Figure 8.1.3b Environmental impact assessment:

Normalised global warming potential (GWP), total
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 79 of 139

5 .0 E- 0 4

4 .0 E- 0 4

3 .0 E- 0 4
n o r m a lis e d P O C P s c o r e
2 .0 E- 0 4

1 .0 E- 0 4
s u b s titu tio n
0 .0 E+ 0 0 a p p lic a tio n

- 1 .0 E- 0 4 s e p a r a tio n

- 2 .0 E- 0 4 c o lle c tio n

- 3 .0 E- 0 4

- 4 .0 E- 0 4

- 5 .0 E- 0 4
la n d f NO W R1 5 R2 5 y R3 5 y R5 0 y R2 5 g R3 5 g R5 0 g
s c e n a r io

Figure 8.1.4a Environmental impact assessment:

Normalised photochemical smog forming potential (POCP) per step

5 .0 E- 0 4

4 .0 E- 0 4

3 .0 E- 0 4
n o r m a lis e d P O C P s c o r e

2 .0 E- 0 4

1 .0 E- 0 4

0 .0 E+ 0 0

- 1 .0 E- 0 4

- 2 .0 E- 0 4

- 3 .0 E- 0 4

- 4 .0 E- 0 4

- 5 .0 E- 0 4
la n d f NO W R1 5 R2 5 y R3 5 y R5 0 y R2 5 g R3 5 g R5 0 g
s c e n a r io

Figure 8.1.4b Environmental impact assessment:

Normalised photochemical smog forming potential (POCP), total.
 TNO-report

80 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

5 .0 E- 0 4

4 .0 E- 0 4

3 .0 E- 0 4
n o r m a lis e d A P s c o r e

2 .0 E- 0 4

1 .0 E- 0 4
s u b s titutio n
0 .0 E+ 0 0 a p p lic a tion

- 1 .0 E- 0 4 s e p ar a tion

- 2 .0 E- 0 4 c o lle c tio n

- 3 .0 E- 0 4

- 4 .0 E- 0 4

- 5 .0 E- 0 4
la n d f NOW R1 5 R2 5 y R3 5 y R5 0 y R2 5 g R3 5 g R5 0 g
s c e n a r io

Figure 8.1.5a Environmental impact assessment:

Normalised acidification potential (AP) per step.

5 .0 E- 0 4

4 .0 E- 0 4

3 .0 E- 0 4
n o r m a lis e d A P s c o r e

2 .0 E- 0 4

1 .0 E- 0 4

0 .0 E+ 0 0

- 1 .0 E- 0 4

- 2 .0 E- 0 4

- 3 .0 E- 0 4

- 4 .0 E- 0 4

- 5 .0 E- 0 4
la n d f NO W R1 5 R2 5 y R3 5 y R5 0 y R2 5 g R3 5 g R5 0 g
s c e n a r io

Figure 8.1.5b Environmental impact assessment:

Normalised acidification potential (AP), total.
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 81 of 139

9 .0 E- 0 4

8 .0 E- 0 4

7 .0 E- 0 4
n o r m a lis e d FW s c o r e
6 .0 E- 0 4

5 .0 E- 0 4
s u b s titu tio n
4 .0 E- 0 4 a p p lic a tio n

3 .0 E- 0 4 s e p a r a tio n

2 .0 E- 0 4 c o lle c tio n

1 .0 E- 0 4

0 .0 E+ 0 0

- 1 .0 E- 0 4
la n d f NO W R1 5 R2 5 y R3 5 y R5 0 y R2 5 g R3 5 g R5 0 g
s c e n a r io

Figure 8.1.6a Environmental impact assessment:

Normalised final waste (FW) per step.

9 .0 E- 0 4

8 .0 E- 0 4

7 .0 E- 0 4
n o r m a lis e d FW s c o r e

6 .0 E- 0 4

5 .0 E- 0 4

4 .0 E- 0 4

3 .0 E- 0 4

2 .0 E- 0 4

1 .0 E- 0 4

0 .0 E+ 0 0

- 1 .0 E- 0 4
la n d f NO W R1 5 R2 5 y R3 5 y R5 0 y R2 5 g R3 5 g R5 0 g
s c e n a r io

Figure 8.1.6b Environmental impact assessment:

Normalised final waste (FW), total.
 TNO-report

82 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

9 .0 E- 0 4

8 .0 E- 0 4

7 .0 E- 0 4
n o r m a lis e d T W s c o r e

6 .0 E- 0 4

5 .0 E- 0 4
s u b s titu tio n
4 .0 E- 0 4 a p p lic a tio n

3 .0 E- 0 4 s e p a r a tio n

2 .0 E- 0 4 c o lle c tio n

1 .0 E- 0 4

0 .0 E+ 0 0

- 1 .0 E- 0 4
la n d f NO W R1 5 R2 5 y R3 5 y R5 0 y R2 5 g R3 5 g R5 0 g
s c e n a r io

Figure 8.1.7a Environmental impact assessment:

Normalised final specific waste (TW) per step.

9.0E-04

8.0E-04

7.0E-04

6.0E-04
n o r m alis e d T W s co r e

5.0E-04

4.0E-04

3.0E-04

2.0E-04

1.0E-04

0.0E+00

- 1.0E- 04
landf NOW R15 R25y R35y R50y R25g R35g R50g
s ce n ar io

Figure 8.1.7b Environmental impact assessment:

Normalised final specific waste (TW), total.
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 83 of 139

5 .0 E- 0 4

4 .0 E- 0 4

3 .0 E- 0 4
n o r m a lis e d A ET P s c o r e
2 .0 E- 0 4

1 .0 E- 0 4
s u b s titu tio n
0 .0 E+ 0 0 a p p lic a tio n

- 1 .0 E- 0 4 s e p a r a tio n

- 2 .0 E- 0 4 c o lle c tio n

- 3 .0 E- 0 4

- 4 .0 E- 0 4

- 5 .0 E- 0 4
la n d f NO W R1 5 R2 5 y R3 5 y R5 0 y R2 5 g R3 5 g R5 0 g
s c e n a r io

Figure 8.1.8a Environmental impact assessment:

Normalised aquatic ecotoxicity potential (AETP) per step.

5 .0 E- 0 4

4 .0 E- 0 4

3 .0 E- 0 4
n o r m a lis e d A ET P s c o r e

2 .0 E- 0 4

1 .0 E- 0 4

0 .0 E+ 0 0

- 1 .0 E- 0 4

- 2 .0 E- 0 4

- 3 .0 E- 0 4

- 4 .0 E- 0 4

- 5 .0 E- 0 4
la n d f NO W R1 5 R2 5 y R3 5 y R5 0 y R2 5 g R3 5 g R5 0 g
s c e n a r io

Figure 8.1.8b Environmental impact assessment:

Normalised aquatic ecotoxicity potential (AETP), total.
 TNO-report

84 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

8.2 Integral normalised results

Separate normalised impacts can be presented integral (in one single graph). As
example figure 8.2.1 presents in one graph combined normalised impacts of the
base case scenarios of this study (yellow bag scenarios R25y, R35y and R50y to-
gether with scenario R15 and the both reference scenarios landfill and NOW).
For integral presentation of the normalised impacts of scenarios in this study this
integral form is applied.

0,0010

0,0008

0,0006 landf
NOW
0,0004
R15

0,0002 R25y
R35y
0,0000 R50y

-0,0002

-0,0004
P

FW
er

TW

TP
P
P

AP

TP
C
W

N
D
ED

AD

En

H
AE
PO
O
G

Figure 8.2.1 Environmental impact assessment: Normalised scores of landf, NOW,

R15, R25y, R35y and R50y
(scenarios II, III and IV; collection with the yellow bag).

Figure 8.2.2 illustrates the normalised scores of the scenarios R25g, R35g, R50g
and of the both reference scenarios (landfill and NOW) and scenario R15.
Both yellow bag scenario (figure 8.2.1) and grey bag scenario (figure 8.2.2) show
FW and TW loads have a relatively important part of the European impact. Also
the AETP, EDP, ENER, GW, POCP and AP loads have a relevant part of this inte-
gral environmental impact.
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 85 of 139

0,0010

0,0008

0,0006 landf
NOW
0,0004
R15
R25g
0,0002
R35g
0,0000 R50g

-0,0002

-0,0004
P

FW
P
er

P
P

TW
AP

TP
TP
C
W

N
ED

AD

En

H
AE
PO
O
G

Figure 8.2.2 Environmental impact assessment: Normalised scores of landf, NOW, R15, R35g and R50g (scenarios
II, III and IV; collection by grey bag).

8.3 Dominance analysis

In order to evaluate the results of the environmental impact assessment of this

study a (brief) dominance analysis is carried out to examine the effects of indivi-
dual system sections on the results of the calculations.
The results of the dominance analysis set the priorities for the sensitivity analysis.
The objective is to identify those steps in the scenarios, which have a significant
influence when the specifications or parameter values are varied.
The dominance analysis still uses a sort of weighting by the application of specific
normalisation factors. The application of a different set of factors can result in
other conclusions with regard to the dominating environmental themese (see 8.4.4).

The contribution of the several steps (collection, sorting and preparation, applica-
tion and substitution) of the system to the separate environmental aspects is already
presented in the figures 8.1.1 up to 8.1.8 inclusive. The conclusions are:
The environmental aspects FW, TW followed by EDP, ENER, GWP, POCP,
AP and AETP have a relatively important impact.
The contribution of the collection step and separation step to the already men-
tioned aspects is small regarding all scenarios.
 TNO-report

86 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

The contribution to AETP, AP, EDP, ENER and POCP is especially realised
by the substituted processes.
The contribution to FW, TW and GWP is mainly caused by the application
step.

An assumption regarding the figures 8.1.1 up to 8.1.8 inclusive is the validity of the
normalisation factors used. As explained in appendix C.2 there exists some uncer-
tainty about the normalisation factors, especially the factors for the themes FW,
TW and AETP can have a relevant influence.
The sensitivity of the results of the LCA study in relation to the choice of the value
of the normalisation factors is an item, which will be illustrated in par. 8.4.4 and
will be further explained in part II of this report (Eco-efficiency model). The sensi-
tivity analysis in chapter 8.4 is related to relevant selections of the substituted proc-
esses and application processes.

8.4 Sensitivity analyses

8.4.1 Energy recovery by a combination of MSWI and cement kiln

Considering the definition of the scenarios (chapter 2.2.3) it is indicated that the
option of energy recovery is not limited to the MSWI application (ER mswi). Energy
recovery can also be realised in a cement kiln (ERhigh), with an additional greater
conversion efficiency. That is why that during the start of this study alternatives
(subvariants) for the scenarios R35 and R50 are defined:
R35yHE contains 35% R, 32% ERmswi and 32% ERhigh
R50yHE contains 50% R, 25% ERmswi and 25% ERhigh

During calculation of the mass balances of these subvariants it appears not to be

possible to realise the mentioned targets with the yellow bag and grey bag collec-
tion systems, including corresponding response rates and the sequential sort-
ing/separation processes with certain separation efficiencies. The separation effi-
ciency of the upgrading process after grey bag collection is insufficient for realisa-
tion of the mentioned target for ERhigh Yellow bag collection (for MSW packaging
plastics) combined with route B3 (for IW packaging plastics) results in the follow-
ing scores:
R35yHE with 35% R and 65% ER by 33.8% ERmswi and 31.2% ERhigh
R50yHE with 50% R and 50% ER by 33.8% ERmswi and 16.2% ERhigh

The environmental load of the new alternatives R35yHE and R50yHE is calculated
in the sensitivity analysis and the normalised results are condensed in figure 8.4.1
(yellow bag system) and compared with the results of the base case; figure 8.2.1.
The participation of ERhigh in both R35y and R50y has especially (positive) conse-
quences for TW and AETP (comparison with figure 8.2.1).
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 87 of 139

Because of the participation of ERhigh the quantity of packaging plastics in the

MSWI will be reduced and consequently also the quantity of flue gas cleaning
residue will decrease. That is why the TW impact of the scenarios R35y and
R50y will decrease.
Because of the application of ERhigh (the processing of plastics in a cement
kiln) coal is substituted in a conventional cement kiln process. The avoided
coal mining has important consequences for the AETP impact. The processing
of packaging plastics by means of ERhigh has a notable influence on reduction
of the AETP load, compared with the incineration of plastics in a MSWI.

Of course the application of the scenarios R35yHE and R50yHE has costs conse-
quences. These consequences will be explained in part II of this report (Eco-
efficiency model).
 TNO-report

88 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

0,0010

0,0008

0,0006 landf
NOW
0,0004
R15

0,0002 R25y
R35y
0,0000 R50y

-0,0002

-0,0004
P

FW
er

TW

TP
P
P

AP

TP
C
W

N
D
ED

AD

En

H
AE
PO
O
G

Figure 8.2.1 Environmental impact assessment: Normalised scores of landf, NOW, R15,
R25y, R35y and R50y
(scenarios II, III and IV; collection with the yellow bag).

0,0010
0,0008
0,0006

0,0004 landfill
0,0002 NOW
R15
0,0000
R25y
-0,0002 R35y
-0,0004 R50y
-0,0006
-0,0008
-0,0010
GWP

POCP

FW

TW
Ener

ODP

HTP
AP

NP
EDP

ADP

AETP

Figure 8.4.1 Normalised environmental impacts yellow bag routes :

Energy recovery by MSWI (ER = ERmswi) compared with energy recovery by
a combination of MSWI and cement kiln
(ER= ERmswi + ERhigh).
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 89 of 139

8.4.2 Energy recovery by a MSWI with 65% heat recovery

The energy yield of the MSWI (ERmswi) is an important starting point of the calcu-
lations. In practice the energy output and sequentially the energy consumption can
differ enormously per installation. Also the flue gas cleaning of the MSWI can dif-
fer per installation. With the help of a sensitivity analysis the consequences of a
changing energy yield have been studied.

The assumption that the flue gas cleaning meets the Dutch standards during the
processing of the packaging plastics in a MSWI is the base starting point for the
calculations. Furthermore the MSWI produces both electricity and heat (to be used
for district heating and/or industrial purposes). This energy yield corresponds with
the production of a Dutch average MSWI, which means an output of 0.2 MJ elec-
tricity and 0.1 MJ heat per MJ (LHV) input. The energy conversion efficiency of
the MSWI increases when only heat is generated. Several MSWI installations gen-
erate more than 0.65 MJ heat per MJ (LHV) input.
A yield of 0.65 MJ heat per MJ (LHV) input is the starting point for the sensitivity
analysis of the scenarios R15, R25y, R35y and R50y. In this case the flue gas
cleaning meets the (less severe) German flue gas standards.
With the described adjustment the environmental load of the scenarios R15, R25y,
R35y and R50y is calculated and the normalised results are illustrated in figure
8.4.2 (yellow bag system) and compared with the base case results (figure 8.2.1).
Especially the changed energy recovery of the MSWI has consequences for the en-
vironmental impacts and particularly for AP, AETP and EDP (comparison with
figure 8.2.1):
The greater heat recovery of the MSWI results in a remarkable saving of con-
ventional heat from coal and oil. The winning and combustion of these fuels
deliver a relatively great contribution to AP and AETP, and a strong reduction
will take place when ERmswi = heat is selected.
Heat produced by the MSWI results in a greater saving of coal than those of
electricity production (based on BUWAL 250 database). However production
of electricity by a MSWI results in a saving of relatively scarce fuels such as
gas and nuclear fuel. Coal is not a scarce resource. For this reason the EDP
saving for ERmswi = heat + electricity is to a bigger extent than for ER mswi =
heat (particularly in the case of R15).
 TNO-report

90 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

0,0010

0,0008

0,0006 landf
NOW
0,0004
R15

0,0002 R25y
R35y
0,0000 R50y

-0,0002

-0,0004
P

FW
er

TW

TP
P
P

AP

TP
C
W

N
D
ED

AD

En

H
AE
PO
O
G

Figure 8.2.1 Environmental impact assessment: Normalised scores of landf, NOW, R15,
R25y, R35y and R50y
(scenarios II, III and IV; collection with the yellow bag).

0,0010

0,0008

0,0006
landf
0,0004
NOW
0,0002 R15
0,0000 R25y
R35y
-0,0002
R50y
-0,0004

-0,0006

-0,0008
P

FW
P
er

P
P

TW
AP

TP
TP
C
W

N
ED

AD

En

H
AE
PO
O
G

Figure 8.4.2 Normalised environmental impacts yellow bag routes:

Electricity and heat recovery by MSWI (ERmswi = heat + electricity)
compared with maximal heat recovery by MSWI
(ERmswi = heat).
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 91 of 139

8.4.3 Feedstock recycling by the Texaco gasification process

The feedstock recycling (FR) target of scenarios II, III and IV is realised by proc-
essing mixed plastics fractions from grey bag or yellow bag routes. In the base cal-
culations these mixed plastics are processed in a blast furnace, as a substitute of the
normal reducing agent, heavy oil.

In the sensitivity analysis FR mixed plastics fractions are processed as feedstock in

the Texaco gasification plant. Gasification of plastics in the Texaco process, with
additional H2 supply, produces syngas for methanol production. Syngas from plas-
tics is a substitute for natural gas based syngas.
With the change of the feedstock recycling process the environmental load of the
scenarios R25y, R35y and R50y is recalculated. The normalised results are illus-
trated in figure 8.4.3 (yellow bag system). Comparison with the base situation
(comparison with figure 8.2.1) results in the following remarks.

The changed selection of the feedstock recycling option has some minor conse-
quences for the environmental impacts. Compared with the substitution of oil by
the blast furnace substitution of natural gas by gasification results for the environ-
mental aspects AETP, POCP and EDP in lower net environmental benefits. Conse-
quently there are some higher environmental loads of the recycling scenarios in the
case of gasification. These differences however can hardly be detected (comparison
of the results of figure 8.4.3 with those of figure 8.2.1).
 TNO-report

92 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

0,0010

0,0008

0,0006 landf
NOW
0,0004
R15

0,0002 R25y
R35y
0,0000 R50y

-0,0002

-0,0004
P

FW
er

TW

TP
P
P

AP

TP
C
W

N
D
ED

AD

En

H
AE
PO
O
G

Figure 8.2.1 Environmental impact assessment: Normalised scores of landf, NOW, R15,
R25y, R35y and R50y
(scenarios II, III and IV; collection with the yellow bag).

0,0010

0,0008

0,0006 landf
NOW
0,0004
R15
R25y
0,0002
R35y
0,0000 R50y

-0,0002

-0,0004
P

FW
P
er

P
P

TW
AP

TP
TP
C
W

N
ED

AD

En

H
AE
PO
O
G

Figure 8.4.3 Normalised environmental impacts yellow bag routes :

Feedstock recycling by blast furnace process (FR = blast furnace) compared
with Texaco gasification process)
(FR = gasification).
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 93 of 139

8.4.4 Sensitivity of normalisation factors

As discussed in paragraph 8.3 there is a considerable uncertainty about the values

of normalisation factors. In part II of this study (see 10.3) some alternative nor-
malisation sets (N2, N3) are presented considering the eco efficiency approach. In
this paragraph the impacts of these alternative normalisation data sets are illus-
trated in the graphs of figure 8.4.4 a and figure 8.4.4b and compared with the re-
sults of the base case, see figure 8.2.1 (normalisation set N1).
 TNO-report

94 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

0,0010

0,0008

0,0006 landf
NOW
0,0004
R15

0,0002 R25y
R35y
0,0000 R50y

-0,0002

-0,0004
P

FW
er

TW

TP
P
P

AP

TP
C
W

N
D
ED

AD

En

H
AE
PO
O
G

Figure 8.2.1 Environmental impact assessment: Normalised scores of landf, NOW, R15,
R25y, R35y and R50y
(scenarios II, III and IV; collection with the yellow bag).

0,0005

0,0004

0,0003

0,0002 landf
NOW
0,0001
R15
R25y
0,0000
R35y
-0,0001 R50y

-0,0002

-0,0003

-0,0004
EDP ADP Ener GWP ODP POCP AP NP FW TW AETP HTP

Figure 8.4.4a Normalised environmental impacts yellow bag routes :

Normalisation by set N2 (see table 10.3.2).
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 95 of 139

0,0025

0,0020

0,0015 landf
NOW
R15
0,0010
R25y
R35y
0,0005 R50y

0,0000

-0,0005
EDP ADP Ener GWP ODP POCP AP NP FW TW AETP HTP

Figure 8.4.4b Normalised environmental impacts yellow bag routes :

Normalisation by set N3 (see table 10.3.2).

Such as in the base case (normalisation set N1, see figure 8.2.1) the relative contri-
bution of the FW impact to the integral environmental impact for the scenarios
landfilland NOWis also most dominant in figure 8.4.4a (application normalisa-
tion set N2) and figure 8.4.4b (application normalisation set N3).
The relative contributions to the normalised environmental impact of the other
themes (EDP, ENER, GWP, POCP, etc.) varies considerably when different nor-
malisation sets are applied.
 TNO-report

96 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 97 of 139

9. Conclusions part I

Hereafter the conclusions of the analysis of costs and environmental impacts are
summarised.

Costs inventory
Inventoried costs in this study are derived from literature as real costs, without sub-
sidies, profits etc. The costs inventory leads to the following features:
Total costs of the reference scenarios vary between 0.174 EURO per kg plas-
tics (landfill) and 0.254 EURO per kg plastics (NOW). Total costs of recycling
scenarios vary more then a factor 3 between 0.204 EURO per kg plastics (R15)
and 0.669 EURO per kg plastics (R50y).
The scenarios with an increasing recycling rate R1 illustrate an increase of total
costs. Increasing costs for collection, separation and treatment are only partly
compensated by an increase of benefits.
Increasing R rate by mixed plastics recycling as a concrete substitute (MPR)
results in higher total costs compared with feedstock recycling (FR), because of
the rather low benefits of the MPR products compared with those of feedstock.
Yellow bag scenarios have higher total costs compared with grey bag scenar-
ios. Especially the collection costs increase with increasing R rate in that case.

Environmental impact assessment

In this study environmental inventory items (emissions, resources and wastes) of
scenarios are expressed as environmental impacts by the LCA method. Environ-
mental impacts in this study are : mineral resources depletion (ADP), fuel re-
sources depletion (EDP), global warming (GWP), ozone depletion (ODP), human
toxicity (HTP), aquatic ecotoxicity (AETP), photochemical ozone creation
(POCP), acidification potential (AP), nutrification potential (NP), final waste de-
posit (FW), specific final waste deposit (TW) and cumulative energy requirement
(ENER). Environmental impacts scores are made dimensionless by means of nor-
malisation with average European impacts.

Relative important impacts:

The impacts FW and TW, followed by AETP, AP, EDP, ENER, POCP and
GWP relatively have the highest part to the normalised European environ-
mental impact.

1
R = {MR + MPR + FR }
 TNO-report

98 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

Consequences of increasing recycling rate R

With an increasing recycling rate R of the scenarios there is an increase of
AETP, AP, EDP and ENER, whereas there is a decrease of the impacts TW
and GWP.

Comparison grey bag scenarios with yellow bag scenarios

With an increasing recycling rate R of the scenarios there is a greater increase
of some impacts for grey bag scenarios, especially with respect to AETP and
EDP. The greater impact load is a consequence of the higher energy input for
separation processes in the case of grey bag options.

Relative important processes in the comparison:

The calculated FW impact is mainly a consequence of the landfill application,
whereas most of TW impact is generated from fly ash and residues of MSWI.
Generally the reduction of FW and the growth of TW and GWP is dominated
by the final treatment (application) processes. Collection and separation proc-
esses have minor influence on these impacts, The same conclusion can be
made for the substituted processes with respect to FW and TW. With respect to
GWP there is a considerable contribution of the substituted processes.
The reduction of the impacts AETP, AP, EDP, ENER and POCP is mainly a
result of substituted processes. Collection, separation and application processes
have minor influences on these impacts.

Sensitivity analysis with respect to substituted processes

Relevant selections with respect to substituted processes are subjected to a sensitiv-
ity analysis.
Changing 100% MSWI energy recovery to a combination of partial MSWI and
partial co-combustion in a cement kiln for both scenarios III and IV can not be
realised by implementation of grey bag scenarios. The reason is the limited
level of collection efficiency and separation efficiency in practise. In the case
of yellow bag scenarios there is a reasonable potential for co-combustion in a
cement kiln. Regarding these scenarios combined energy recovery results in a
relative important decrease of the TW impact and in some decrease of the
AETP impact.
Increasing the energy recovery of a MSWI to 65% heat recovery (compared
with 20% electricity plus 10% heat recovery) results in a slight decrease of the
AP and AETP impacts, whereas there is an increase of EDP impact. This result
is caused by differences with respect to substituted fuels.
Change of the feedstock recycling process to Texaco gasification with substitu-
tion of the production of natural gas based syngas (compared with substitution
of oil in a blast furnace) results in limited consequences of environmental im-
pacts. Feedstock recycling by gasification gives higher environmental impacts
especially considering AETP, POCP and EDP, because of differences between
the substituted feedstock and the additional hydrogen supply needed in the case
of gasification.
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 99 of 139

Application of normalisation factors

The choice of the set of normalisation factors (and their values) estimates the rela-
tive part of the normalised European impact to the several environmental themes.

General conclusion
Increase of the recycling rate R results in an increase of costs and in variation of
the environmental impacts for the studied scenarios. The variation of impacts is
mainly dependent of the substitution of primary products by the products (or out-
put) of recycling processes and energy recovery processes.
 TNO-report

100 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 101 of 139

Part II: Demonstration Eco-efficiency

 TNO-report

102 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 103 of 139

10. Introduction Eco-efficiency

10.1 Weighting environmental impacts

In principle the environmental load calculations result in 12 separate scores per

environmental aspect for each scenario (see part 1, table 2.6).
The relative environmental scores of the scenarios (normalised scores of the indi-
vidual environmental themes,) are presented in bar charts (part I : chapter 8).
Normalised scores show the relative contribution of the individual environmental
themes, but do not give a comparison or a mutual impact judgement of the different
themes. The normalisation results only indicate that 8 environmental themes have a
relevant contribution to the total load (FW, TW, EDP, ENER, GWP, POCP, AP
and AETP). This means that the residual themes (ADP, ODP, NP, HTP) have a
relatively small influence.

For a condensed presentation of the LCA results there is a need to present the envi-
ronmental load in one total score per scenario (integral environmental impact
score). Lists with 12 different environmental scores give detailed information, but
the presentations are less convenient.
To be able to calculate one integral environmental impact score a weighting of the
different environmental aspects has to take place. The integral environmental im-
pact calculation is based on a weighting or ranking of the relevance of the different
environmental themes. Such a ranking gives rise to at least two important objec-
tions:
The ranking is subjective. Different visions of society result in different rank-
ing methods.
Today no ranking method has a broad society support and there is no general
consensus for this item.

For these reasons weighting is the most subjective element of the LCA methodol-
ogy In the ISO guidelines for the LCA methodology (ISO FDIS14042) it is even
recommended to execute no weighting for LCA studies with a broad public
impact. In a number of LCA studies the weighting step is not incorporated.
On the other hand there are several LCA studies in which one or more weighting
methods are carried out (for example (5), (12), (21), (22)) and the results are ap-
plied for different purposes.
 TNO-report

104 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

A partial counter against the objections can be offered by the following:

1. To argue in a clear way the need of a weighting during describing the goal and
scope definition of the LCA study
2. To make a distinction between the results with and without a weighting of the
environmental aspects.
3. To apply different weighting methods and different weighting factors during the
weighting of the environmental aspects.

The above mentioned aspects are also incorporated in the report of this study. In
addition to the detailed impacts described in part 1, part 2 presents one total score
per scenario for the environmental load.

10.2 Portfolios

In addition to the environmental load, also the costs of the different ways to proc-
ess plastic packaging waste have been estimated during the execution of this study.
So the judgement of the different scenarios is related to ecology and economy.
The term Eco has a dual meaning in this situation.

The condensed presentation of the results of this study is based on two parameters,
the total costs score and the integral environmental impact score. These parameters
are estimated in the following way:
During the costs calculations in part I (chapter 6 of this study) the different cost
items are summarised in one total costs score per scenario.
The weighting of the environmental aspects results in one integral environ-
mental impact score per scenario.

The combined presentation of the integral environmental impact score and the total
costs score can be realised in a graphic way with a two dimensional graph.
In literature different presentation ways are described (for instance (5), (12)).

The proposed option is the so-called portfolio presentation. This option has
been developed and applied by BASF (12) in this framework. With this way of
presentation both scores are reflected in a portfolio square divided in 4
squares. Only the differences between the costs scores and the differences be-
tween the environmental impact scores are presented. In addition these differences
are standardised (made dimensionless). The results of the two described operations
are called the Costs Indicator and the Impacts Indicator.

Figure 10.1 gives a schematic example of the defined portfolio. The calculated
portfolio costs and the calculated portfolio impacts estimate the position of each
scenario in the portfolio.
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 105 of 139

C o s t s In d ic a t o r 0

II I

Im p a c t s In d ic a t o r
III IV

Figure 10.1 Example of portfolio for 4 scenarios (hypothetical)

(--------- = Eco-efficiency).

The portfolio Costs Indicator as well as the portfolio Impacts Indicator always
have a value between 0 and 1. All separate values are a linear representation of the
differences between the total costs scores and the differences between the integral
environmental impacts scores of the scenarios to be compared.

The significance of the 4 squares in the portfolio is roughly as follows:

square I = relatively low costs, relatively low environmental impact
square II = relatively high costs, relatively low environmental impact
square III = relatively high costs, relatively high environmental impact
square IV = relatively low costs, relatively high environmental impact

In principle the diagonal is an important reference line in the portfolio. Points with
a relatively great distance above the diagonal are relatively Eco efficient.

The advantage of the portfolio presentation is the clear positioning of the different
scenarios with respect to the differences in costs and the differences in environ-
mental impacts.

In this report the portfolio presentation is used for the judgement of the
Eco-efficiency of the scenarios with the different recycling rates.

10.3 Calculation basis for Eco-efficiency

In part II of this study the portfolio presentation is applied for the judgement of the
Eco-efficiency of the several scenarios with different recycling targets.
 TNO-report

106 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

This way of presentation is important for specific combinations (sets) of scenarios

to be compared. The differences of the separate scenarios of the set are high-
lighted in the portfolio. In principle the Eco-efficiency calculations are carried out
for the same combinations of scenarios, which are illustrated in the bar charts de-
scribed in chapter 8, part 1.
The following sensitivity analyses are carried out in chapter 11 on a portfolio
basis:

Weighting factors:
As already indicated in chapter 10.2 the selection of the different weighting meth-
ods (and weighting factors) to be applied is an important prior condition for the
calculation of the environmental impact scores and so for the estimation of the
Eco-efficiency.
Table 10.3.1 shows the different combinations of weighting factors related to dif-
ferent weighting methods applied in this study.

Normalisation factors:
As already described in chapter 8.3 the normalisation factors of several environ-
mental aspects are relatively uncertain (for the calculation of the relative contribu-
tion to the environmental load). During calculations of these aspects people have to
apply a range of values for the normalisation factor. A change of the normalisation
factors value can result in a move of the point position in the portfolio.
Table 10.3.2 gives an overview of the several normalisation factors, which corre-
spond with different frameworks (Europe, Germany, Netherlands).

List of environmental aspects:

The results of the LCA studies are not always achieved from the same combina-
tions of environmental aspects as applied in this study (part I; table 2.6). During the
execution of several LCA studies for instance people do not consider toxicity (HTP
and AETP). The results of other LCA studies show the omission of the aspect final
waste (FW and TW). Table 10.3.3 shows the different combinations of environ-
mental aspects used for the sensitivity calculations.

Application processes:
As already indicated in part I chapter 8.3 the selection of the application processes
and the specific output and efficiency of these processes determine the relevance of
the environmental impacts to an important extent. The choice of the so called back
ground processes has (indirectly) an important impact.
The same sensitivity analysis as performed in chapter 8.4 is executed on the basis
of portfolio presentation.

Additional scenarios:
In the sensitivity analysis some additional scenarios are considered in addition to
the main recycling scenarios as given in part I:
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 107 of 139

Two additional scenarios with 10% mechanical recycling combined with 90%
energy recovery, in order to illustrate the consequences of a decrease of me-
chanical recycling and an increase of energy recovery. One additional scenario
is strictly focussed at mechanical recycling of IW plastic mono streams and one
additional scenario is mainly focussed at mechanical recycling of MSW pack-
aging plastics.
Two additional scenarios with 10% mechanical recycling, in combination with
a decreased energy recovery and an increased rate of landfill, in order to illus-
trate the consequences of landfill instead of energy recovery.

Table 10.3.1 Settings of weighting factors for environmental impacts

W1 = base weighting factors APME, all impacts equal except toxicity
(correction factor ).
W2 = weighting method conform Danish EDIP method (33)
W3 = DTT weighting factors (Distance to target factors,
Dutch government; reference (31)).

W1 W2 W3
1)
EDP 9.1% 0.16% -
ADP 9.1% 0.16% 2) -
ENER 9.1% 0.08% 3) 3.4% 6)
GWP 9.1% 10.36 % 4.2%
ODP 9.1% - 22.8%
POCP 9.1% 9.56% 5.5%
AP 9.1% 10.36% 13.5%
NP 9.1% 9.56% 11.4%
FW 9.1% 8.76% 13.5%
TW 9.1% 8.76% 13.5%
AETP 4.5% 20.72% 4) 5.9%
HTP 4.5% 21.51% 5) 6.3%
1) average weighting factor for gas and oil
2) average weighting factor for lead, copper and nickel
3) average weighting factor for oil, coal, gas and brown coal
4) average weighting factor acute and chronic aquatic ecotoxicity
5) average weighting factor human toxicity (air, water and soil)
6) default weighting factor assumed by [31]
 TNO-report

108 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

Table 10.3.2 Settings of normalisation factors for environmental impacts

N1 = base normalisation, conform table 2.7,
derived from European totals.
N2 = normalisation data derived from German totals
N3 = normalisation data derived from Dutch totals.

N1 N2 N3
EDP 0.0016 0.0016 0.0015
ADP 0.00043 0.00043 0.00043
ENER 0.0073 0.0063 0.0050
GWP 0.00009 0.00009 0.00006
ODP 11 11 3
POCP 0.11 0.11 0.10
AP 0.021 0.021 0.019
NP 0.019 0.019 0.019
FW 0.00080 0.00042 0.0020
TW 0.013 0.0020 0.025
AETP 0.000014 0.000014 0.000014
HTP 0.00010 0.00010 0.00010

Table 10.3.3 Settings of environmental impacts selections

for calculation integral environmental impacts.

M1 M2 M3
EDP Included Included Included
ADP Included Included Included
Ener Included Included Included
GWP Included Included Included
ODP Included Included Included
POCP Included Included Included
AP Included Included Included
NP Included Included Included
FW Included Included Not Included
TW Included Included Not Included
AETP Included Not Included Not Included
HTP Included Not Included Not Included
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 109 of 139

11. Results Eco-efficiency

11.1 Comparison of grey bag and yellow bag system

The Eco-efficiency has been calculated for the scenario combinations, which are
presented in part I chapter 8.2. The base weighting factors (table 10.3.1), the
base normalisation factors (table 10.3.2) and the base impact assessment
method (table 10.3.3) are starting points for the calculations.

Calculation example of a portfolio

Environmental impact indicator

The results of the normalisation of scenarios R15, R25y, R35y and R50y, including
both reference scenarios, are the basis of the calculation of the value of the envi-
ronmental impact indicator in this example. All normalised figures are presented in
table 11.1. Multiplication with the corresponding weighting factors (factors W1 ,
table 10.3.1) totalises the individual theme scores per scenario.The total weighted
scores per scenario (SUM) are presented in the second part of table 11.1
The landfill scenario shows the highest total impact (0.000087), scenario R15 has a
negative total value (- 0.000016) whereas scenario R50y has the lowest total im-
pact (- 0.000030 ). The difference (DELTA) between both extremes in this com-
parison is 0.000117. Consequently the environmental impact indicators are:
scenario landfill: 0.9,
scenario R50y: 0.1
scenario R15: 0.9 - 0.8* (0.000087 + 0.000016)/0.0000117 = 0.20

Costs indicator
Costs figures per kg packaging plastics of scenarios R15, R25y, R35y and R50y
including both reference scenarios, are the basis of the calculation of the value of
the costs indicator in this example.
The landfill scenario shows the lowest total costs (0.174 euro), scenario R15 ac-
counts for higher costs (0.204 euro) whereas scenario R50y has the highest costs in
this comparison ( 0.669 euro ); see table 11.2. The difference (DELTA) between
both extremes in this comparison is 0.415 euro. Consequently the costs indicators
are:
scenario landfill: 0.1,
scenario R50y: 0.9
scenario R15: 0.9 - 0.8* (0,669 - 0.204)/0.495 = 0.15
 TNO-report

110 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

Table 11.1 Base case calculation example impacts indicator.

Landf NOW R15 R25y R35y R50y

normalised values (factors N1, table 10.3.2)
EDP 6.1E-06 -6.4E-05 -2.8E-04 -2.7E-04 -2.3E-04 -1.8E-04
ADP 0.0E+00 -2.0E-09 3.0E-10 1.9E-10 -1.3E-08 -2.7E-08
Ener 6.7E-06 -8.4E-05 -2.2E-04 -2.3E-04 -2.1E-04 -2.0E-04
GWP 2.6E-05 2.4E-05 1.1E-04 9.3E-05 7.7E-05 5.2E-05
ODP 8.8E-07 -4.3E-07 -2.1E-06 -5.9E-06 -5.2E-06 -6.4E-06
POCP 3.0E-05 -7.9E-05 -1.4E-04 -1.7E-04 -1.6E-04 -1.7E-04
AP 2.0E-05 -3.2E-05 -1.6E-04 -1.4E-04 -1.4E-04 -1.2E-04
NP 3.3E-06 3.0E-07 -5.2E-06 -4.2E-06 -4.0E-06 -3.3E-06
FW 7.6E-04 5.3E-04 -2.5E-06 -2.5E-06 -5.2E-06 -7.8E-06
TW 1.0E-04 1.7E-04 6.8E-04 5.6E-04 5.0E-04 3.9E-04
AETP 2.9E-06 -7.3E-05 -2.9E-04 -2.6E-04 -2.3E-04 -1.8E-04
HTP 1.3E-06 2.1E-09 -4.0E-06 -5.9E-06 -4.7E-06 -4.3E-06
weighted values (factors W1, table 10.3.1)
EDP 5.5E-07 -5.8E-06 -2.6E-05 -2.5E-05 -2.1E-05 -1.6E-05
ADP 0.0E+00 -1.9E-10 2.8E-11 1.7E-11 -1.2E-09 -2.4E-09
Ener 6.1E-07 -7.6E-06 -2.0E-05 -2.1E-05 -1.9E-05 -1.8E-05
GWP 2.3E-06 2.2E-06 9.8E-06 8.5E-06 7.0E-06 4.7E-06
ODP 8.0E-08 -3.9E-08 -1.9E-07 -5.4E-07 -4.8E-07 -5.8E-07
POCP 2.8E-06 -7.2E-06 -1.3E-05 -1.5E-05 -1.5E-05 -1.5E-05
AP 1.9E-06 -2.9E-06 -1.5E-05 -1.3E-05 -1.2E-05 -1.1E-05
NP 3.0E-07 2.7E-08 -4.8E-07 -3.8E-07 -3.6E-07 -3.0E-07
FW 6.9E-05 4.8E-05 -2.2E-07 -2.3E-07 -4.7E-07 -7.1E-07
TW 9.1E-06 1.5E-05 6.2E-05 5.1E-05 4.6E-05 3.5E-05
AETP 1.3E-07 -3.3E-06 -1.3E-05 -1.2E-05 -1.0E-05 -8.0E-06
HTP 5.8E-08 9.5E-11 -1.8E-07 -2.7E-07 -2.1E-07 -2.0E-07
SUM 8.7E-05 3.9E-05 -1.6E-05 -2.8E-05 -2.6E-05 -3.0E-05

DELTA 0.00003 + 0.000087 = 0.000117

IMPACT INDICATOR 0.90 0.57 0.20 0.11 0.13 0.10

TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 111 of 139

Table 11.2 Base case calculation example costs indicator.

Landf NOW R15 R25y R35y R50y

Euro 0.174 0.254 0.204 0.354 0.480 0.669

DELTA 0.669 - 0.174 = 0.495

COSTS INDICATOR 0.10 0.33 0.15 0.38 0.59 0.90

Figure 11.1.1 shows the results of the yellow bag scenarios R25y, R35y and R50y
together with those of the both reference scenarios (landfill and NOW) and sce-
nario R15. Figure 11.1.2 shows the results of the grey bag scenarios R25g, R35g
and R50g together with those of the both reference scenarios (landfill and NOW)
and scenario R15. The scenarios landfill and NOW show the greatest environ-
mental load in all portfolios, but the costs are relatively low. Scenario R15 gives an
obvious decrease of the environmental load without a significant costs increase.
With increasing R value the scenarios R25, R35 and R50 show a growth in costs
without an obvious reduction of the environmental impacts. For this reason sce-
nario R15 followed by R25 is the most Eco efficient scenario regarding both com-
parisons.

Figure 11.1.1 and figure 11.1.2 cannot be compared with each other, because the
scaling factors for both figures are different. Figure 11.1.3 is constructed in order to
compare the results of the yellow bag scenarios with the results of the grey bag
scenarios. Figure 11.1.3 contains the results of the grey bag scenarios R35g and
R50g compared with the results of the yellow bag scenarios R35y and R50y, in
combination with those of the both reference scenarios (landfill and NOW) and
scenario R15.
The yellow bag systems are realised with more costs whereas the grey bag systems
are characterised by more environmental load. An important reason for the diffe-
rence in environmental load is the energy consumption of the mechanical separa-
tion of the grey bag volumes. But figure 11.1.3 also shows that overall less differ-
ence is observed with respect to the Eco-efficiency of yellow bag systems versus
the Eco-efficiency of grey bag systems.
 TNO-report

112 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

0
la n d f
Im p a c ts I.

NO W

R1 5
0.5
R2 5 y

R3 5 y

R5 0 y
1
1 0.5 C o s ts I. 0

Figure 11.1.1 Eco-efficiency portfolio: Comparison of

reference scenarios and R15 (scenario I), R25y, R35y and R50y
(scenarios II, III and IV; collection with the yellow bag).

0
la n d f
Im p a c ts I.

NO W

R1 5
0.5
R2 5 g

R3 5 g

R5 0 g
1
1 0.5 C o s ts I. 0

Figure 11.1.2 Eco-efficiency portfolio: Comparison of

reference scenarios and R15 (scenario I), R25g, R35g and R50g
(scenarios II, III and IV; collection with the grey bag).
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 113 of 139

0
la n d f

Im p a c ts I.
NO W

R3 5 g
0.5
R5 0 g

R3 5 y

R5 0 y
1
1 0.5 C o s ts I. 0

Figure 11.1.3 Eco-efficiency portfolio : Comparison of

reference scenarios and R35g, R50g, R35y and R50y
(scenarios III and IV with resp. yellow and grey bag).

11.2 Varying ER and FR

11.2.1 Energy recovery by a combination of MSWI and cement kiln

The sensitivity analysis in part I chapter 8.4 concerns energy recovery with a
higher conversion efficiency in a cement kiln (ERhigh). Yellow bag scenarios in-
cluding ERhigh have the following features of recycling rates:
R35yHE with 35% R, 33.8% ERmswi and 31.2% ERhigh
R50yHE with 50% R, 33.8% ERmswi and 16.2% ERhigh

In figure 11.2.1 the Eco-efficiency portfolio of both alternatives R35yHE and

R50yHE is presented in combination with the Eco-efficiency of the both reference
scenarios and the scenarios R25y and R15.
The processing of packaging plastics in a cement kiln concerning R35yHE and
R50yHE results in a further going reduction of the environmental load compared
with R25y and R15 (without processing of plastics in a cement kiln). This image
does not agree with that of figure 11.1.1 Nevertheless scenario R15 (followed by
R25) is the most Eco efficient scenario regarding this comparison. The reason for
this are the relatively high costs of the scenarios R35yHE and R50yHE.
 TNO-report

114 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

0
landf
Impacts I.

NOW

R15
0.5
R25y

R35yHE

R50yHE
1
1 0.5 Costs I. 0

Figure 11.2.1 Eco-efficiency portfolio :

Energy recovery by combination of MSWI and cement kiln.

11.2.2 Energy recovery by a MSWI with 65% heat recovery

The energy yield of the MSWI (ERmswi) is an important starting point of the calcu-
lations. For the standard calculations the energy yield corresponds with 0.2 MJ
electricity output and 0.1 MJ heat output per MJ (LHV) input. The sensitivity
analysis carried out in part I chapter 8.4 concerns also a yield of 0.65 MJ heat per
MJ (LHV) input for the yellow bag scenarios.
Figure 11.2.2 shows the Eco-efficiency portfolio of these yellow bag alternatives in
combination with the Eco-efficiency of both reference scenarios and R15.
Figure 11.2.2. is almost comparable with figure 11.1.1. Scenario R15 (followed by
R25y) is also the most Eco efficient scenario in this context.

0
la n d f
Im p a c ts I.

NO W

R1 5
0.5
R2 5 y

R3 5 y

R5 0 y
1
1 0.5 C o s ts I. 0

Figure 11.2.2 Eco-efficiency portfolio :

Energy recovery by MSWI with 65% heat recovery efficiency.
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 115 of 139

11.2.3 Feedstock recycling by the Texaco gasification process

In the sensitivity analysis FR mixed plastics fractions are processed as feedstock in

the Texaco gasification plant as alternative for the application in the Blast Furnace,
as described in chapter 8.4.

The changed selection of the feedstock recycling option has no relevant conse-
quences for the portfolio comparison. Figure 11.2.3 is almost comparable with fig-
ure 11.1.1. Scenario R15 (followed by R25y) is the most Eco efficient scenario in
this context.

0
la n d f
Im p a c ts I.

NO W

R1 5
0.5
R2 5 y

R3 5 y

R5 0 y
1
1 0.5 C o s ts I. 0

Figure 11.2.3 Eco-efficiency portfolio:

Feedstock recycling by the Texaco gasification process.

11.3 Varying weighting and normalisation factors

An important limiting condition when judging the Eco-efficiency is the calculation

of an aggregated environmental impact score with subjective weighting factors,
as already indicated in chapter 10. Some additional remarks can be made for the se-
lection of the normalisation factors and the choice of impact assessment themes;
see 2.7.

All Eco-efficiency portfolios presented in chapter 11.1 and chapter 11.2 are calcu-
lated with the base weighting factors (table 10.3.1), the base normalisation fac-
tors (table 10.3.2) and the base impact assessment method (table 10.3.3). Figure
11.3.1 up to figure 11.3.6 inclusive demonstrate the consequences of the change of
the weighting factors, normalisation factors and of the consequences of other selec-
tions of impact assessment themes. All these examples are based on the compari-
son of the yellow bag scenarios R25y, R35y and R50y with the both reference sce-
narios (landfill and NOW) and with scenario R15.
 TNO-report

116 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

The codes of the clusters of the weighting factors, normalisation factors and the
code of the impact method are given in the tables 10.3.1 up to 10.3.3 inclusive and
used in the figures 11.3.1 up to 11.3.6 inclusive. The examples illustrated in
figure 11.3.1 up to figure 11.3.6 inclusive are comparable with the presentation in
figure 11.1.1.

The presentations in figure 11.3.1 up to figure 11.3.6 inclusive illustrate that the
change of weighting factors and normalisation factors and an other selection of im-
pact assessment themes (within the restrictions as given in chapter 10.3) have a
small influence on the Eco-efficiency profiles. In all portfolios scenario R15 (fol-
lowed by R25y) is the most Eco efficient scenario.

0
landf
Impacts I.

NOW

R15
0.5
R25y

R35y

R50y
1
1 0.5 Costs I. 0

Figure 11.3.1 Eco-efficiency portfolio:

Weighting W2, normalisation Nbase, method Mbase.

0
la n d f
Im p a c ts I.

NO W

R1 5
0.5
R2 5 y

R3 5 y

R5 0 y
1
1 0.5 C o s ts I. 0

Figure 11.3.2 Eco-efficiency portfolio:

Weighting W3, normalisation Nbase, method Mbase.
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 117 of 139

0
la n d f

Im p a c ts I.
NO W

R1 5
0.5
R2 5 y

R3 5 y

R5 0 y
1
1 0.5 C o s ts I. 0

Figure 11.3.3 Eco-efficiency portfolio:

Weighting Wbase, normalisation N2, method Mbase.

0
la n d f
Im p a c ts I.

NO W

R1 5
0.5
R2 5 y

R3 5 y

R5 0 y
1
1 0.5 C o s ts I. 0

Figure 11.3.4 Eco-efficiency portfolio:

Weighting Wbase, normalisation N3, method Mbase.
 TNO-report

118 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

0
la n d f
Im p a c ts I.

NO W

R1 5
0.5
R2 5 y

R3 5 y

R5 0 y
1
1 0.5 C o s ts I. 0

Figure 11.3.5 Eco-efficiency portfolio:

Weighting Wbase, normalisation Nbase, method M2.

0
la n d f
Im p a c ts I.

NO W

R1 5
0.5
R2 5 y

R3 5 y

R5 0 y
1
1 0.5 C o s ts I. 0

Figure 11.3.6 Eco-efficiency portfolio:

Weighting Wbase, normalisation Nbase, method M3.

11.4 Additional scenarios

In this paragraph, considering the sensitivity analysis, some additional scenarios

are considered in addition to the main recycling scenarios as given in part I.

Decrease of mechanical recycling and increase of energy recovery

Two additional scenarios are defined with 10% mechanical recycling combined
with 90% energy recovery, in order to illustrate the consequences of a decrease of
mechanical recycling and an increase of energy recovery compared with scenario
R15. In additional scenario R10i the 10% mechanical recycling is strictly focus-
sed on IW mono streams, whereas in additional scenario R10m the mechanical
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 119 of 139

recycling is a combination of 6% MPR plus 2% MR from MSW plastics and 2%

MR from IW plastic mono streams.
In figure 11.4.1 both additional scenarios are compared with the main recycling
scenarios and the reference scenarios. The additional scenario with the mechanical
recycling strictly focussed at mono streams (R10i) shows a more or less equal
Eco-efficiency as the main recycling scenario R15 (15% mechanical recycling and
85% energy recovery). Obviously in this context a detailed analysis of replacing
mechanical recycling by energy recovery cannot be illustrated with the rough
comparison basis shown in figure 11.4.1.
The additional scenario R10m focussed on MR and MPR of MSW plastics results
however in a considerable decrease of Eco-efficiency compared with the main re-
cycling scenario R15. Most important reason is the relatively high costs of me-
chanical recycling or mixed plastics recycling of plastics out of MSW, compared
with the costs of mechanical recycling of IW plastics mono streams.

Decrease of energy recovery and increase of landfill

Two additional scenarios with 10% mechanical recycling of IW plastics mono
streams in combination with a decreased share of energy recovery are defined, in
order to illustrate the consequences of landfill instead of energy recovery. Addi-
tional scenario R10ia contains a combination of 10% MR, 50% ER plus 40% land-
fill, whereas additional scenario R10ib has a combination of 10% MR and 90%
landfill. In figure 11.4.2 both additional scenarios are compared with the main re-
cycling scenarios and the reference scenarios.
Figure 11.4.2 indicates that increasing levels of energy recovery compared to the
NOW situation could be an attractive way forward in terms of Eco-efficiency.

0
landf
Impacts I.

NOW

R15

R25y
0.5
R35y

R50y

R10i

R10m
1
1 0.5 Costs I. 0

Figure 11.4.1 Eco-efficiency portfolio:

Comparison of alternative scenarios with 10 % mechanical recycling and
90% energy recovery (R10i, focussed at IW plastic mono streams and R10m,
focussed at MSW plastics) with scenarios I, II, III and IV (R15, R25y, R35y
and R50y) and reference scenarios (landfill and NOW).
 TNO-report

120 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

0
landf
Impacts I.

NOW

R15

R25y
0.5
R35y

R50y

R10ia

R10ib
1
1 0.5 Costs I. 0

Figure 11.4.2 Eco-efficiency portfolio:

Comparison of alternative scenarios, 10% MR, 50% ER and 40% landfill
(R10ia) and 10% MR, 0% ER and 90 % landfill (R10ib), with scenarios I, II,
III and IV (R15, R25y, R35y and R50y) and reference scenarios (landfill and
NOW).

11.5 Discussion

In the preceding paragraphs of this chapter the portfolio presentation is used for
illustration of the sensitivities of relevant assumptions, starting points in the calcu-
lation procedure, etc. and the portfolio presentation is positioned as a powerful tool
for the judgement of the Eco-efficiency of the recycling scenarios.

On the other hand there are still some specific restrictions in this presentation:
The portfolio presentation is based on dimensionless figures. Different port-
folios with different scenarios cannot be compared with each other directly.
Critical environmental themes in each portfolio have to be analysed additio-
nally
Weighting factors are always subjective.

These restrictions will be elucidated in this paragraph.

11.5.1 Restrictions of dimensionless figures

The Eco-efficiency presentation is based on dimensionless costs differences and on

dimensionless environmental impacts differences. Different portfolios with diffe-
rent scenarios cannot be compared with each other, because the scenarios com-
pared and their scaling factors are different whereas the Eco-efficiency portfolios
give no direct information about absolute figures.
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 121 of 139

As a consequence standardisation of portfolios by dimensionless figures results in

some interpretation draw-backs. In this context in figure 11.5.1 identical scenarios
as in figure 11.1.1 are presented in a portfolio with absolute figures.

Absolute costs figures per kg plastic are presented in figure 11.5.1. The costs dif-
ference between the recycling rates of 15% and 50% (R15 and R50y) is at least a
factor 3 (about 0.2 Euro/ kg plastic vs. 0.67 Euro/kg plastic). On a European scale
the total amount of plastic packaging waste is estimated at 9.8 million ton/y. This
results in total costs of 2.0 billion Euro/y for R15 compared with the total costs of
6.7 billion Euro/y for R50y.

- 0 .0 0 0 0 3 la nd f
A b s o lu t e Im p a c ts

NO W
0

R1 5

R2 5 y

R3 5 y

0 .0 0 0 0 9
R5 0 y

0 .7 0 .2
C o s t s (E u r o /k g )

Figure 11.5.1 Eco-efficiency portfolio with absolute figures:

Comparison of the reference scenarios (landfill and NOW) with the recycling
scenarios R15 (scenario I) and R25y, R35y, R50 y (scenarios II, III and IV
with the yellow bag system).

The absolute environmental impact scores indicated in figure 11.5.1 are the nor-
malised plus weighted scores. These absolute scores correspond with an environ-
mental credit (negative valued environmental impact) or an environmental load
(positive valued environmental impact).
Scenario R15 scenario has an environmental credit of -0.000015 but in view of en-
vironmental impacts the best scoring scenario corresponds to 50% recycling
(R50y). This recycling scenario corresponds with an environmental credit of
-0.00003 whereas the landfill scenario corresponds with an environmental load of
0.00009.

To illustrate in this context the environmental impacts in figure 11.5.1 (or figure
11.1.1 etc.) a comparison is made with a familiar public activity, driving a car.
Per kg plastic the difference in environmental impacts between scenarios R15 and
R50y represents an average passenger car journey of 800 meters. On a European
scale the difference between R50y and R15 corresponds with a car journey of
 TNO-report

122 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

20 km per year per European inhabitant. Compared with the landfill scenario, the
scenario R15 is equivalent with to the saving of a car journey of 160 km per year
per European inhabitant.

11.5.2 Most sensitive environmental impacts

From the Eco-efficiency figures people cannot directly estimate the value of the in-
dividual contributions of the separate environmental impacts scores to the envi-
ronmental impact indicator in the portfolio. This restriction is a consequence of the
condensed presentation of the LCA results (as an one value indicator of integral
environmental impacts).
The contributions of separate environmental impacts can differ enormously per
scenario. Besides in some cases there is a difference of the uncertainty range per
environmental impact. As a consequence there are several relevant sensitive (or
critical) environmental themes for each portfolio. Hereafter an analysis of the
base portfolio (comparison of landfill, NOW, R15, R25y, R35y and R50y) is given:

A: Final waste (FW) and specific final waste (TW).

The environmental impacts indicator score of both the reference scenarios (landfill
and NOW) is determined by the FW score to a relevant extent. Regarding at the
other hand the different recycling scenarios, the TW score has a relatively large
contribution. In view of the normalisation a relative large uncertainty range is rec-
ognised for TW as well as FW normalisation factors. The resulting bandwidth of
the Environmental Impacts Indicator probably can cause some shifted positions in
the portfolios, especially for the individual recycling scenario positions to each
other.

B: Aquatic ecotoxicity (AETP) and fuel resources depletion (EDP)

The MR, FR and ER options have a relatively important (positive) score for EDP
and AETP. This results in a relatively attractive score of the Environmental Impact
Indicator of the recycling and recovery alternatives. The mutual positions of the
examined recycling scenarios are determined especially by the following factors to
a relevant extent:
For AETP the selection of the background data (data of the energy conver-
sion and fuel production processes) play an important role. Another selection
(in this study the BUWAL250 data are used) could give shifted positions of the
recycling scenarios.
The EDP judgement has been based on the worldwide technically available
stocks of fuel types. When this classification basis will be changed (for in-
stance geological stocks instead of technical stocks) this will have conse-
quences to a greater or lesser extent for the mutual position of the recycling
scenarios in the portfolio presentation.
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 123 of 139

11.5.3 Weighting factors

Any weighting is subjective and there is no general consensus on any weighting

method. There are scientific, economic and political approaches with respect to the
different weighting methods.
Different society views and options will result in the selection of different weight-
ing factors for the environmental themes. In this study the three different weighting
approaches, applied for the Eco-efficiency portfolio calculations, are related to the
scientific approach. When sufficiently developed economic and political ap-
proaches are available, it is recommendable to apply them.
If weighting is restricted to one single theme the Eco-efficiency portfolios can
change enormously. For instance when only the final specific waste theme (TW)
would be weighted the landfill scenarios is the best scenario as can be seen in
figure 8.6. Weighting methods with a high weighting of a specific theme show the
same effect. For example the weighting with shadow prices results in a high
weight for the global warming theme [39] as shown in figure 8.1.3. This weighting
will give the best environmental results for the NOW scenario and the landfill
scenario. These specific weighting methods are not considered in this study but
their application would change the results considerably.

The weighting with shadow prices is not included for the following reasons:
Broad range of the prices of a specific theme.
For not all the themes shadow prices are defined or available.
When this method is developed further on it can become an attractive one.
The eco-indicator method is also not taken into account, because this method ap-
plies other defined environmental themes, for example biodiversity, and themes as
toxicity and final waste are not included. For that reason this method is less suit-
able in the area of waste management.
 TNO-report

124 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 125 of 139

12. Conclusions part II

Hereafter the conclusions of part II are summarised.

General
The executed study is a first step with regard to the comparison of scenarios
with different levels of material recycling and energy recovery.
For this study (except the market evolution of recycled plastics) the approach is
descriptive rather than change oriented. It is based on theoretical scenarios. As
usual for such studies, results may vary according to the data used, the selected
primary products and processes which are substituted by secondary prod-
ucts/energy resources, or by the weighting method selected to calculate the inte-
grated environmental impact. Some variants around the basic scenarios I-IV il-
lustrate the impact this can have on the conclusions.
The calculations are related to the current situation with respect to the composi-
tion of plastics (the average European composition) and real state of the art
processes (developed in Northern Europe). The data used are related to the sec-
ond half of the nineties. This study does not present results of a dynamic ap-
proach with respect to composition changes of plastics and improvement of ex-
isting processes or introduction of new processes.
Within the described limitations the study indicates trends for the next decade.
The results of the study have to be used on an European level (or possibly coun-
try level) and are not applicable for any local/regional situation, because waste
volumes, compositions and regional collection systems can vary enormously.
The results of the study show:
- The single most positive impact on eco-efficiency comes via diversion from
landfill in favour of a combination of mechanical recycling of monomaterial
relatively clean waste + energy recovery in moderately efficient modern
MSWIs (30% energy recovery efficiency, complying with the new EU In-
cineration Directive).
- Increasing the efficiency of energy recovery improves the eco-efficiency of
the system.
- Increasing recycling rates from 15 to 50% (with FR and/or MPR) and corre-
spondingly decreasing the energy recovery rate increases costs by a factor 3
while environmental impact remain broadly similar.
- With the choice of the recovery options mechanical recycling of monomate-
rial relatively clean waste + energy recovery in moderately efficient
modern MSWIs, significant improvement in environmental impact could be
achieved at similar costs compared to the current EU average.
Further developments based on the results of this study can be:
- The execution of prospective studies of selected routes for given countries.
- The execution of a change-oriented approach including changes in plastics
composition and innovations in technological processes.
 TNO-report

126 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

- An evaluation within 5 years to take into account the evolution of waste

composition, waste processing techniques and to include the actual experi-
ence in the field of municipal solid waste management.
The study has been critical reviewed by a panel of independent experts.

Comparison of reference scenarios and recycling scenarios

The sensitivity analysis is only performed on environmental aspects and not on
costs.
Both reference scenarios (landfill and NOW) show the relatively highest envi-
ronmental impacts, but costs are relatively low.
With increasing recycling rate R scenarios dont result in an obvious difference
in environmental impacts, but there is a significant cost increase.
Scenario R15, followed by scenario R25y or R25g, are the most favourable
scenarios with respect to the results of the Eco-efficiency analysis.
Less difference is observed between the Eco-efficiency of the yellow bag sys-
tems compared with the Eco-efficiency of the grey bag systems.
The process type energy recovery, the energy recovery level and the kind of
feedstock recycling process are varied in this study. Variation of these options
does not change the result of the comparison (scenario R15, followed by R25
are the most attractive ones from the Eco-efficiency point of view).
Weighting factors, normalisation factors and the number of impact assessment
themes are varied within defined restrictions or ranges. Varying these aspects
does not change the results of the comparisons (scenario R15, followed by R25
are the most attractive ones from the Eco-efficiency point of view).
Regarding the comparison of scenarios and the results of the sensitivity analy-
sis (varying weighting factors, assumptions etc.) a more Eco efficient process-
ing of end of life packaging plastics will result in a combination of 15-25%
recycling and 85-75% (high efficiency) energy recovery. An increase of 15%
to 25% recycling means an additional (feedstock and/or mixed plastics) recy-
cling of more contaminated (mixed) plastics to the (mechanical) recycling of
mono-streams is achieved.

Demonstration of the Eco-efficiency concept

This type of presentation gives a clear overall overview of the different sce-
narios with respect to differences in costs and differences in environmental
impacts. When the environmental impact does not differ more than 5% one has
to be cautious when conclusions have to be drawn.
Calculations in this study are based on defined assumptions and starting points.
The consequences of changing underlying parameters are clearly demonstrated
with the Eco-efficiency presentation.
The results of this study demonstrate how a plastic packaging waste processing
scenario could be improved in terms of Eco-efficiency.
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 127 of 139

13. Critical Review Report

Critical Review Eco-efficiency of Recovery Scenarios of Plastic Packaging

CRITICAL REVIEW REPORT

Eco-efficiency of Recovery Scenarios of Plastic Packaging

This project was completed by TNO for the APME. It investigates the costs and environmental
balances of different theoretical scenarios for the recovery of plastic packaging.

The report is divided into two parts:

the first part is dedicated to the LCA and the cost inventory of the recovery scenarios; and
the second part is dedicated to the analysis of the eco-efficiency of the scenarios.

The critical review panel reviewed the entire document, although only the LCA part was considered in
reference to the ISO 14040 standards.

Function of the Critical Review

LCA should be performed according ISO 14040 and following. According to the ISO-Standard a
critical review process is necessary if LCA results are used for comparative assertions which are
intended to be disclosed. This is valid for LCA on hand.

According ISO 14040 the critical review process shall ensure that:
the methods used to carry out LCA are consistent with the International Standard,
the methods used to carry out LCA are scientifically and technically valid,
the data used are appropriate and reasonable in relation to the goal of the study,
the interpretations reflect the limitations and the goal of the study,
the study report is transparent and consistent.

Since the International Standard does not specify requirements on the goals or uses of LCA, a critical
review can neither verify nor validate the goals that are chosen for an LCA, or the uses to which LCA
results are applied.

Members of the critical review panel were Helene Teulon (chairperson), Roland Hischier, Geert
Bergsma and Till Nrrenbach.

Juillet 2001 1/4

 TNO-report

128 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

Critical Review Eco-efficiency of Recovery Scenarios of Plastic Packaging

Goal and Scope

The goal and scope of the project are clearly displayed in the report. It is clearly stated that this project
is a first step to identify trends in the recovery of plastic packaging for the five coming years. It is also
clearly mentioned that the selected approach for this "first step" does not take into account the evolu-
tion of the collection and treatment techniques and the possible changes in the composition of plastic
waste from packaging : it is a "descriptive approach", as opposed to a "dynamic" one.

Methodology and Data

The methodology and the assumptions made along the project are logical and scientifically valid. They
are consistent with the goal and scope of the project.

The approach for the selection of data is a pragmatic approach: only the composition of plastic waste
from packaging is based on average data in a set of European countries. For the collection and treat-
ment of plastic waste, readily available "state-of-the-art" data have been selected from different coun-
tries. This is consistent with the goal and scope of the project as long as the related limitations are dis-
played with the conclusions, and it is the case in the report.

Limitations

The main limitations of the approach are displayed in the executive summary as well as in the conclu-
sion of the report.

In particular, it is clearly mentioned that the "results may vary according to the data used, the selected
primary products and processes which are substituted by secondary products, or by the weighting
method selected to calculate the integrated environmental impact".

In the conclusion, it is also clearly stated that the trends identified in this study can only be used at the
European level, and that they "are not applicable for any local/regional situation, because waste
volumes, compositions and regional collection
systems can vary enormously". The panel is reluctant to agree that the results could possibly used at
the country level, and recommends that specific data are collected
for a country level use. However, the methodological framework could be fruitfully
re-used in that case.

Besides, relevant possible extensions of the study are proposed in the conclusion, such as
to conduct a similar study with a dynamic approach, making assumptions on the evolu-
tion of both the packaging waste composition and the collection and treatment tech-
niques; or

Juillet 2001 2/4

TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 129 of 139

Critical Review Eco-efficiency of Recovery Scenarios of Plastic Packaging

to reconsider the results within 5 years, to take into account the evolution of techniques,
waste composition, and to take advantage of the new experiences in the field of municipal
waste management.

Results

Within these limitations, the panelists are confident that the results are reliable. It has to be noticed
that the data related to the "substituted processes" dominate the results. However, the displayed
simulations demonstrate that the results are robust.
The results summarised in the executive summary and in the conclusion truly reflect the content of the
project.

Eco-efficiency Portfolio Presentation

On page 120, it is said that "this type of presentation gives a clear overall overview of the different
scenarios with respect to differences in costs and differences in environmental impacts. When
environmental impact do not differ by more than 5%, one has to be cautious when conclusions are to
be drawn". The panel further insists that the eco-efficiency port-folio presentation can be misleading
when the differences between the compared results are not significantly different. Indeed, whatever the
difference in percentage between the results, the portfolio will spread the dots apart on the graph,
which will make the results appear as significantly different. This might lead to erroneous conclusions.
It is not the case in this project, but it is important to keep this risk in mind when using this type of
presentation.

Report/LCA/Compliance with ISO 14040ff

The overall report is consistent and transparent.

The LCA part complies in general with the recommendations of the ISO14040 and following
regarding data, methodology and reporting. The detailed appendices allow to reproduce most of the
calculations if needed.
In the second part of the report, a weighting method is used to combine the different environmental
burdens into a single note, which is not consistent with ISO 14040 recommendations. This choice is
however clearly stated and argued in section 10.
The report includes most of the sections specifically required in the case of a "comparative assertion to
be disclosed to the public". Only the treatment of missing data and the data quality assessment could
have been either added or developed.
It has to be noticed that all the LCA calculations are based on existing LCA data, extracted from
several reliable sources. This implies that the calculation procedures might not be consistent in all
cases. However, the data used are appropriate and reasonable in relation to the goal of the study.

Juillet 2001 3/4

 TNO-report

130 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

Critical Review Eco-efficiency of Recovery Scenarios of Plastic Packaging

Overall Conclusion

The report is transparant and it displays clear objectives with reasonable limited targets. The develop-
ment of the methodology is logical and scientifically valid, the approach for the selection of data is
pragmatic, their are both consistent with the goal and scope of the project.
The calculations are rigorous and clearly displayed. Relevant conclusions are drawn from the calcula-
tions. The limitations are displayed at the same time as the conclusions, which helps make the results
strong and consistent with the goal and scope of the project.

The LCA part of the project was in general conducted in compliance with the recommendations of the
ISO 14040ff standards.
The critical review process was constructive, and significant efforts were successfully dedicated to the
improvement of the project and the report.

Juillet 2001 4/4

TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 131 of 139

14. References

[1] Information system on plastic consumption and waste management in

Western Europe,
European overview 1997 data; Study commissioned by APME; Sofres SA,
Montrauge, France; Report January 1999

[2] Ansems A. et. al., 1996

Cold Box feed preparation routes
Study commissioned by APME
TNO report, TNO-MEP-R95/338, 31 May 1996

[3] Heyde M. and Kremer M., 1999

Recycling and recovery of plastics from packaging in domestic waste LCA
type analysis of different strategies
Fraunhofer Institut Verfahrentechnik und Verpackung

[4] Heyde M. and Kremer M., 1999

Energy recovery from plastic waste as an alternative fuel in the cement
industry, Fraunhofer Institut Verfahrentechnik und Verpackung

[5] Croezen H. and Sas H., 1997

Evaluation of the Texaco gasification process for treatment of mixed plastic
household waste
Final report phase 1 & 2, CE report

[6] Heijungs R. et. al., 1992

Environmental Life cycle assessment of products : Guide and Backgrounds
CML report (ISBN 90-5191-064-9)

[7] Huijbrechts, M.A.J, May 1999

Priority assessment of toxic substances in the frame of LCA: development
and application of the multi media fate, exposure and effect model USES-
LCA
Interfaculty Department of Environmental Science University of
Amsterdam.

[8] Bontoux L. and Leone F., May 1997

The legal definition of waste and its impacts on waste management in
Europe.
IPTS report for the Committee for Environment Public Health and
Consumer Protection of the European parliament (EUR 17716 EN)
 TNO-report

132 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

[9] Blonk H. et al., 1997

Drie referentieniveaus voor normalisatie LCA
RIZA werkdocument 97.110x (Dutch)

[10] Boerma H. and Kramer R., 1999

Milieubeoordeling waterleidingsystemen
CREM report nr.98.295 prepared for RIZA (Dutch)

[11] Europe Environment: The Dobris Assessment

ISBN 92 826 5409 5

[12] Environmental Statistics Germany 1996

(Umwelt datenbank) UBA

[13] Nordic Guidelines on LCA

Thema Nord 1995:20 (ISBN 92 9120 692 X).

[14] International standard ISO

ISO 14040
ISO 14041
ISO/DIS 14042:1998
ISO/DIS 14043:1998

[15] De Haes, H.A. et van Halen C.J.G., 1997

Results of the Dutch Platform LCA and Waste
Report PI!MC The Hague

[16] Anonymus, 1995

LCA and treatment of solid waste, Proceedings of the international
workshop, September 28-29 1995 Stockholm, SETAC

[17] APME report series: Eco profiles of the European polymer industry

[18] Schriftenreihe Umwelt Nr 250: I and II

BUWAL 250
Bundesambt fur Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft, Bern (Swiss/German)

[19] Oekoinventare von Entsorgungsprozessen

ETH ESU Reihe nr. 1/96 (Swiss/German)

[20] Oekoinventarie von Energiesystemen

2e Auflage ETH ESU (Swiss/German)
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 133 of 139

[21] The Eco Indicator 99

A damage oriented method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment: Methodology
Report
(Pre Consultants; draft version 25 August 1999)

[22] Sas H.W.J and Wit R.N, 1997

Afweging, prioritering en selectie van milieumaatregelen in bedrijven en
ketens CE rapport (Dutch)

[23] Wrisberg N. et. al., 1997

A strategic Research Programme for Life Cycle Assessment
Final working document for the concerted Action LCANET

[24] Finvedden G. et. al., 1995

Life cycle Assessment and treatment of solid waste AFR report 98

[25] Rijpkema L.P.M. et.al., 1996

Modelmatige analyse van integraal verbranden van klein chemisch afval en
klein wit en bruingoed TNO MEP 96/414 (Dutch)

[26] Vroonhof et.al., J.T.W., 1996

Financile waardering van de milieu effecten van
afvalverbrandingsinstallaties in Nederland CE rapport (Dutch)

[27] AOO achtergronddocument 91 19c

Technische verkenning storten (Dutch)

[28] LAGA 1983

Informationsschrift 6: Deponiegas (German)

[29] LAGA 1985

Informationsschrift 10: Sickerwasser (German)

[30] AOO, 1992

Milieu effectrapport Tienjarenprogramma afval 1992-2002
(Dutch)Authentication

[31] Tukker A. en Eggels P.G., 1999

Berekening van weegfactoren (Dutch)
intern TNO report 99 PO 773 Dst.

[32] Prognos, 2000

Oekobilanz fur Getrnkeverpackungen II
UBA FB bericht (German)
 TNO-report

134 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

[33] Chalmers, 1998

Life cycle assessment of packaging systems for beer and soft drinks
Danish Environmental Protection Agency
Reports Miljo project 399 to 406

[34] RDC, Coopers and Lybrand, 1997

Eco balances for policy making in the domain of Packaging and packaging
waste
Reference B4 3040/95001058/MAR/E3

[35] MRPI handleiding

[36] LCA Nordic technical reports 1 - 9, 1995

Thema Nord 1995:502 ISBN 92 9120 608 3
Nordic council of ministers

[37] CML, 2000

draft manual CML II

[38] Sofres, TNO;

Potential for post-user plastic waste recycling;
Study commissioned by APME, March 1998

[39] Ansems, A. et al.

Cold Box feed preparation routes, Phase 2
Study commissioned by APME
TNO report, TNO-MEP R97/390, January 1998

[40] Ansems, A. et al.

Cold Box Model Phase 3:
Calculation of routes with mechanical recycling
Study commissioned by APME
TNO report, TNO-MEP-R 99/216, June 1999.
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 135 of 139

15. Abbreviations

GENERAL

ER energy recovery rate

ERhigh energy recovery rate realised by high efficiency recovery (cement kiln)
ERmswi energy recovery rate realised by MSWI
FR feedstock recycling rate
FU functional unit
HE high efficiency energy recovery
IW industrial waste
Landf. landfill of waste
LHV low heating value
MPR mixed plastics recycling rate
MR mechanical recycling rate
MSW municipal solid waste
MSWI municipal solid waste incineration
PE poly ethylene
PP poly propylene
PS poly styrene
PVC poly vinyl chloride
R recycling rate (sum of MR, MPR en FR)
RDF refuse derived fuel
S substitution factor; ratio of primary products replaced (substituted) by secondary plastics

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, CATEGORIES

ADP environmental impact Mineral Resources Depletion Potential

EDP environmental impact Fuel Resources Depletion Potential
GWP environmental impact Global Warming Potential
ODP environmental impact Ozone Depletion Potential
HTP environmental impact Human Toxicity Potential
AETP environmental impact Aquatic Eco toxicity Potential
POCP environmental impact Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential
AP environmental impact Acidification Potential
NP environmental impact Nutrification Potential
FW environmental categorie Final Waste
TW environmental categorie Specific final Waste (hazardous waste)
ENER environmental categorie Cumulative energy requirement
 TNO-report

136 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

ROUTES FOR COLLECTION AND SEPARATION

A1 route for MSW integral collection (black bag), residues to MSWI

A1L route for MSW integral collection (black bag), residues to landfill
A2 route for MSW integral collection (black bag) + bottle bank, residues to MSWI
A2L route for MSW integral collection (black bag) + bottle bank, residues to landfill
A3 route for MSW dry/wet collection (grey bag), residues to MSWI
A4 route for MSW dry/wet collection (grey bag) + bottle bank, residues to MSWI
A4NOW route for MSW dry/wet collection (grey bag) + bottle bank (shifted separation
for NOW scenario ), residues to MSWI
A4R35g route for MSW dry/wet collection (grey bag) + bottle bank (shifted separation
for R35g scenario ), residues to MSWI
A4R50g route for MSW dry/wet collection (grey bag) + bottle bank (shifted separation
for R50g scenario ), residues to MSWI
A5 route for MSW separate collection (yellow bag), residues to MSWI
A5R25y route for MSW separate collection (yellow bag), (shifted separation for R25y
scenario ), residues to MSWI
A5R35y route for MSW separate collection (yellow bag), (shifted separation for R35y
scenario ), residues to MSWI
A5R35yHE route for MSW separate collection (yellow bag), (shifted separation for R35y
scenario with optimised energy recovery ), residues to MSWI
A5R50y route for MSW separate collection (yellow bag), (shifted separation for R50y
scenario ), residues to MSWI
A5R50yHE route for MSW separate collection (yellow bag), (shifted separation for R50y
scenario with optimised energy recovery ), residues to MSWI

B1 route for IW integral collection (black bag), residues to MSWI landfill

B1L route for IW integral collection (black bag) + bottle bank, residues to landfill
B2 route for IW separate collection rigids and films, residues to MSWI
B2L route for IW separate collection rigids and films, residues to landfill
B3 route for IW separate collection rigids, films and mixed plastics, residues to
MSWI
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 137 of 139

SCENARIOS OF PLASTIC PACKAGING PROCESSING

Landf reference scenario scenario I (landfill)

NOW reference scenario scenario II
R15 scenario I recycling rate R = 15 %
R25 scenario II recycling rate R = 25 %
R25y scenario II with yellow bag route recycling rate R = 25 %
R25g scenario II with grey bag route recycling rate R = 25 %
R35 scenario III recycling rate R = 35 %
R35y scenario III with yellow bag recycling rate R = 35 %
route
R35yHE scenario III with yellow bag recycling rate R = 35 %, optimised energy recovery
route
R35g scenario III with grey bag route recycling rate R = 35 %
R50 scenario IV recycling rate R = 50 %
R50y scenario IV with yellow bag recycling rate R = 50 %
route
R50yHE scenario IV with yellow bag recycling rate R = 50 %, optimised energy recovery
route
R50g scenario IV with grey bag route recycling rate R = 50 %
R10i additional scenario recycling rate R = 10%, by IW recycling and rest to MSWI
(energy recovery 90%)
R10m additional scenario recycling rate R = 10%, mainly by MSW recycling and rest
to MSWI (energy recovery 90%)
R10ia additional scenario recycling rate R = 10%, by IW recycling and rest partially to
MSWI (energy recovery 50%, landfill 40 %)
R10ib additional scenario recycling rate R = 10%, by IW recycling and rest to landfill
(energy recovery 0%, landfill 90 %)
 TNO-report

138 of 139 TNO-MEP R 2001/119

TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 139 of 139

16. Authentication

Name and address of the principal:

Association of Plastics Manufacturers
in Europe (APME)
Box 5
B-1160 Brussels
Belgium

Names and functions of the co-operators:

P.G. Eggels
A.M.M. Ansems
B.L. van der Ven

Names and establishments to which part of the research was put out to contract:
J.L.B. de Groot,
TNO Institute of Industrial Technology

Date upon which, or period in which, the research took place:

January 1999 - March 2000

Signature: Approved by:

Ir. A.M.M. Ansems Ir. H.S Buijtenhek

Project leader Head of department


BusinessParkE.T.V.
LaanvanWestenenk501

Postbus342
7300AHApeldoorn
TheNetherlands
TNO-report
www.mep.tno.nl

R2000/119 T +31555493493
F +31555419837
Eco-efficiencyofrecoveryscenariosofplastic info@mep.tno.nl
packaging



APPENDICES





Date July2001

Authors P.G.Eggels
A.M.M.Ansems
B.L.vanderVen

Orderno. 31915

Keywords -PlasticPackaging
-Recoveryscenarios
-Eco-efficiency
-LifeCycleAnalysis
-CostAnalysis

Intendedfor AssociationofPlasticsManufacturersinEurope(APME)
Box5
B-1160Brussels
Belgium






Allrightsreserved.
Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproducedand/orpublishedbyprint,photoprint,microfilmor
anyothermeanswithoutthepreviouswrittenconsentofTNO.

Incasethisreportwasdraftedoninstructions,therightsandobligationsofcontractingpartiesare
subjecttoeithertheStandardConditionsforResearchInstructionsgiventoTNO,ortherelevant
agreementconcludedbetweenthecontractingparties.
Submittingthereportforinspectiontopartieswhohaveadirectinterestispermitted.


2001TNO

 TNO-report

2 of 127 TNO-MEP R 2000/119

Appendices
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 3 of 127

Appendices

Table of contents

A. Inventory of process data ............................................................................ 5

A.1 Composition of packaging plastics ............................................. 5
A.2 Mass balances per route, including costs and energy fac-
tors................................................................................................ 7
A.3 Application processes ................................................................ 28
A.3.1 Landfill ....................................................................... 28
A.3.2 Energy recovery: Municipal Solid Waste Incin-
eration ......................................................................... 33
A.3.3 Energy recovery: Cement kiln ................................... 44
A.3.4 Feedstock recovery: Blast Furnace............................ 44
A.3.5 Feedstock recovery: Texaco gasification proc-
ess ............................................................................... 45
A.3.6 Mechanical recycling of mixed plastics .................... 47
A.3.7 Mechanical recycling ................................................. 48
A.4 Recycling and recovery rates per route ..................................... 50
A.5 Background processes ............................................................... 54
A.6 Supplement mass balances ........................................................ 66

B. Results........................................................................................................ 69
B.1 Inventory items .......................................................................... 69
B.2 Characterisation factors ............................................................. 74
B.3 Calculated results of routes ....................................................... 83
B.3.1 Total amounts of substances per route ...................... 83
B.3.2 Costs and environmental impacts of routes............... 95
B.4 Calculated results of scenarios by addition of routes ............... 97
B.5 Impact assessment of scenarios ...............................................113

C. LCA methodological aspects ..................................................................123

C.1 Impact Assessment ..................................................................123
C.2 Normalisation...........................................................................126
 TNO-report

4 of 127 TNO-MEP R 2000/119

Appendices
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 5 of 127

Appendices

A. Inventory of process data

A.1 Composition of packaging plastics

In this study the morphology of packaging plastics is based on statistics of plastic

packaging products published by the Soffres Study (1). The Soffres study doesnt
discrinate large and small film packaging, neither crates and pallets in Industrial
Waste rigids packaging. In addition to the Soffres data in Municipal Solid Waste
(MSW) the plastic films are assumed to be 46% large films (>A4) and 54% small
films (<A4), according to (2). Industrial Waste (IW) plastic films are assumed to be
nearly complete (95%) large films (>A4). The composition of PE/PP plastic rigids
in IW is about 70% crates and pallets.

Table A1.1 and A1.2 show the morphology of packaging plastics. The chemical
composition of plastics is presented in table A1.3 and these data are derived from
the Fraunhofer study (3).

Table A.1.1 Morphology MSW packaging plastics.

Polymer type: Product kt/y w%

PE/PP Films 3933 47.1%
PE/PP Bottles 850 10.2%
PE/PP Other rigids 746 8.9%
PET Bottles 978 11.7%
PET Other rigids 121 1.4%
PS/EPS Bottles 50 0.6%
PS/EPS Other rigids 859 10.3%
PVC Films 320 3.8%
PVC Bottles 292 3.5%
PVC Other rigids 200 2.4%
Total 8349 100%

Table A.1.2 Morphology IW packaging plastics.

Polymer type: Product kt/y w%

PE/PP Films 1879 57.3%
PE/PP Others 1197 36.5%
PS/EPS Rigids 202 6.2%
Total 3278 100%
 TNO-report

6 of 127 TNO-MEP R 2000/119

Appendices

Table A.1.3 Elemental composition of packaging plastics (derived from (3), table 1.1.-4).

PE/PP PET PS/EPS PVC

Parameter films Bottles Others films Bottles Others films bottles others films bottles others

MJ/kg.dsp LHV 41.1 42.7 41.5 21.9 22.8 21.9 36.6 36.6 36.6 17.2 17.2 17.2
w%/kg.dsp Ash 5 1.4 3.7 5 1 5 4.9 4.9 4.9 5 5 5
w%/kg.dsp C 81.2 84.3 82 59.6 62 59.6 87.1 87.1 87.1 37.4 37.4 37.4
H 13.5 14.1 13.7 4.7 4.9 4.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 4.5 4.5 4.5
N 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
O 0 0 0 30.7 31.9 30.7 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
S 0.2 0.04 0.1 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Cl 0.1 0.1 0.4 0 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 52 52 52
F 0.002 0.002 0.002 0 0.002 0 0.002 0.002 0.002 0 0 0
mg/kg.dsp As 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5
Cd 1 0.1 7 0.26 0.6 0.26 1 1 1 100 100 100
Co 1 0.5 3 1 26 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Cr 14 4 28 25 1 25 20 20 20 25 25 25
Cu 45 50 20 250 12 250 44 44 44 250 250 250
Hg 0.5 0.1 0.1 0 1 0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1
Mn 4 1 5 25 16 25 15 15 15 25 25 25
Ni 1 1 33 10 4 10 5 5 5 10 10 10
Pb 5 2 31 5 2 5 24 24 24 500 500 500
Sb 5 3 39 0 211 0 6 6 6 10 10 10
Se 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Sn 5 3 9 5 1 5 4 4 4 5 5 5
Te 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Tl 0.1 0.1 0.1 5 0.3 5 0.1 0.1 0.1 5 5 5
V 1 3 2 25 1 25 1 1 1 50 50 50
Zn 377 226 1751 400 29 400 1620 1620 1620 400 400 400
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 7 of 127

Appendices

A.2 Mass balances per route, including costs and energy factors

Introduction:
Mass balances for treatment routes of packaging plastics are calculated based on
processes described and process efficiencies as reported in the cold box study (2).
Also the process costs and energy input data in this study refer to the cold box
study

In this appendix the mass flows of the separate routes for MSW packaging plastics
and IW packaging plastics are described. For each route the collection and separa-
tion efficiencies are summarised in a table called distribution figures. For pres-
entation purposes the plastic flows are coded each with an unique reference to the
route as:

PX#Y

P = A or B, according to route for MSW plastics (= A) or IW plastics(= B)

X = 1, 2, 3, according to route number
Y = 1, 2, 3, according to flow number in route flow scheme

Specific data of the elemental composition of the plastic flows in the presented
routes are calculated from mass balances. In the tables A2.1 and table A2.2 at the
end of this appendix A2 the elemental compositions of the plastic outputs to final
treatment (= application MR, MPR, FR, ER or landfill) are presented. Recycling
rates and energy recovery rates in this study are based on these compositions of the
plastic outputs.

The allocation models for the application processes are described in appendix A3.
Appendix A4 gives an overview of the calculated recycling and recovery rates per
route based on the allocation model (appendix A3) and the plastics compositions
(appendix A2).
 TNO-report

8 of 127 TNO-MEP R 2000/119

Appendices

Route A1: Black bag (integral collection MSW)

Processes & flows:

INPUT COLLECTION APPLICATION

1 kg 2 kg 3 kg
MSW integral MSW integral
0.718 0.718 0.718

Distribution figures:

Large films Small films Bottles Others

Collection
Integral 100% 100% 100% 100%

Collection:

Allocation is per ton plastics collected.

A1#2
Integral collection and transport MSW plastics by truck.
energy input: 467 MJ/ton plastics
collection costs 133 Euro/ton plastics

Application:

Allocation is per ton plastics input.

The destination of MSW integral is MSWI or Landfill.

The calculation of in/outputs is described in appendix A3 (allocation model) and
appendix A4 (results). Overview of the application flows:

A1#3 Landffill or MSWI

TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 9 of 127

Appendices

Route A2: Bottle Bank (BB)

Processes and flows:

INPUT COLLECTION SEPARATION APPLICATION

1 kg 2 kg 6 kg
MSW integral MSW integral
0.718 0.686 0.686

5 kg
BB res
3 kg 0.002
BB bottles BB sep
0.032 4 kg
Rec Bottles
0.030

Distribution figures:

Large films Small films PE,PP, PET, PS Others

Bottles
Collection
Integral 100% 100% 80% 100%
BB bottles 0% 0% 20% 0%
Separation
BB residue - - 8% -
Recycled bottles - - 92% -

Collection:
Allocation is per ton plastics collected.

A2#2
The rest of MSW (MSW exclusive collected bottles) is integral collected (black
bag) by truck.
transport energy : 467 MJ/ton
transport costs 133 Euro/ton

A2#3
About 20% of the PE, PP, PS and PET bottles are collected by the bottle bank and
are transported to the bottle bank separation plant.
transport energy 3000 MJ/ton bottles
transport costs: 330 Euro/ton bottles
 TNO-report

10 of 127 TNO-MEP R 2000/119

Appendices

Separation:
Allocation is per ton plastics output.

A2#4
Collected bottles are type sorted and upgraded for MR recycling.
electricity input 324 MJ/ton
separation & transport costs 110 Euro/ton
transport energy 878 MJ/ton

A2#5
This flow contains the residues generated during the collected bottles upgrading.
The allocation is identical as the bottles output of the Bottle Bank (A2#4)

Application:
Allocation is per ton plastics input.

The calculation of in/outputs is described in appendix A3 (allocation model) and

appendix A4 (results). Overview of application flows:
A2#4 (Re)granulation followed by material recycling.
A2#5 Landfill or MSWI
A2#6 ditto
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 11 of 127

Appendices

Route A3: Grey bag collection

Processes and flows:

INPUT COLLECTION SEPARATION APPLICATION

1 kg 2 kg 6 kg 10 kg
MSW MSW put compost sep Compost UPGR res
0.718 0.014 0.000 0.016

4 kg 7 kg 8 kg 9 kg 11 kg
Compost res RDF SIFTER Sifted PULPER RDF plast UPGRADING feed
0.014 0.647 0.353 0.349 0.333

12 kg
paper
3 kg 0.004
MSW res BASIC sep
0.704 13 kg
RDF low
0.294

5 kg 14 kg
Metals Fines
0.000 0.071

Distribution figures:
Large films Small films Bottles Others
Collection
MSW res 98% 98% 78.4% 98%
MSW putr 2% 2% 1.6% 2%
Separation
Compost sep
Compost 0% 0% 0% 0%
Compost res 100% 100% 100% 100%
Basic sep
RDF 95% 95% 85% 85%
Fines 5% 5% 15% 15%
Metals 0% 0% 0% 0%
Sifter
Sifted 80% 80% 25% 25%
RDF low 20% 20% 75% 75%
Pulper
RDF plast 99% 99% 99% 99%
Paper 1% 1% 1% 1%
Upgrading
Feed 95% 95% 95% 99%
UPGR res 5% 5% 5% 1%
 TNO-report

12 of 127 TNO-MEP R 2000/119

Appendices

Collection:
Allocation is per ton plastics collected.

A3#2
About 2% of the dry/wet collected MSW plastics are in the putresibles fraction (=
wet fraction). These plastics are sorted out before composting and directed to the
BASIC separation plant. Energy input and costs are assumed to be identical as the
main input of the BASIC separation plant.

A3#3
Dry/wet collected plastics are transported to the BASIC separation plant (direct or
via compost separation). The collection includes transport to the BASIC separation
plant.
transport energy: 589 MJ/ton
transport costs: 178 Euro/ton

Separation:
Allocation is per ton plastics output.

A3#10
The residue from the upgrading process and directed to MSWI or landfill. The al-
location for electricity input for separation is assumed to be identical as the alloca-
tion for RDF low (A3#13).
electricity input 3657 MJ/ton
transport energy 165 MJ/ton
transport & separation costs 167 Euro/ton

A3#11
Separated plastics fraction from the upgrading process, either intended for feed
stock (FR) or for mixed plastics (MPR) destination. This flow is derived from RDF
and is produced by a separation process, existing of a sifter, a pulper and an up-
grader.
electricity input 3657 MJ/ton
transport & seperation costs in the case of feedstock 30 Euro ton
in the case of mixed plastics 590 Euro/ton
transport energy in the case of feedstock 878 MJ/ton
in the case of mixed plastics 439 MJ/ton

A3#12
Plastic residues in pulp (paper fraction) after pulper are not allocated in this study
(cut off flow).

A3#13
Low RDF from the sifter and destinated for MSWI or landfill.
electricity input 3657 MJ/ton
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 13 of 127

Appendices

transport en separation costs 167 Euro/ton

transport energy 165 MJ/ton

A3#14
Plastics in fines fraction from the BASIC separation and transported to landfill or
MSWI.
electricity input 0 MJ/ton
separation & transport costs 167 Euro/ton
transport energy 165 MJ/ton

Application
Allocation is per ton plastics input.

The calculation of in/outputs is described in appendix A3 (allocation model) and

appendix A4 (results). Overview of application flows:
A3#11 Feedstock (or mixed plastics application)
A3#10 Landfill or MSWI
A3#13 ditto
A3#14 ditto
 TNO-report

14 of 127 TNO-MEP R 2000/119

Appendices

Route A4: Bottle Bank + Grey bag collection

Processes and flows:

INPUT COLLECTION SEPARATION APPLICATION

1 kg 2 kg 6 kg 11 kg
MSW MSW putr Compost sep Compost UPGR res
0.718 0.014 0.000 0.016

5 kg 7 kg 9 kg 10 kg 12 kg
Compost res RDF SIFTER Sifted PULPER RDF plast UPGRADING feed
0.014 0.620 0.346 0.343 0.327

13 kg
paper
3 kg 0.003
MSW res BASIC sep
0.672 14 kg
RDF low
0.273

8 kg 15 kg
Metals Fines
0.000 0.066

16 kg
BB res
4 kg 0.002
BB bottles BB sep
0.032 17 kg
Rec Bottles
0.030

Distribution figures :
Large films Small films Bottles Others
Collection
MSW res 98% 98% 78.4% 98%
BB bottles 0% 0% 20%1) 0%
MSW putr 2% 2% 1.6% 2%
Separation
BB sep
BB res - - 8% -
Rec bottles - - 92% -
Compost sep
Compost 0% 0% 0% 0%
Compost res 100% 100% 100% 100%
Basic sep
RDF 95% 95% 85% 85%
Fines 5% 5% 15% 15%
Metals 0% 0% 0% 0%
Sifter
Sifted 80% 80% 25% 25%
RDF low 20% 20% 75% 75%
Pulper
RDF plast 99% 99% 99% 99%
Paper 1% 1% 1% 1%
Upgrading
Feed 95% 95% 95% 99%
UPGR res 5% 5% 5% 1%
1) Bottle bank: only PE/PP, PS and PET bottles.
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 15 of 127

Appendices

Collection and separation figures

Collection
Allocation is per ton plastics collected.

A4#2
About 2% of the dry/wet collected MSW plastics are in the putresibles fraction (=
wet fraction). These plastics are sorted out before composting and directed to the
BASIC separation plant. Energy input and costs are assumed to be identical as the
main input of the BASIC separation plant.

A4#3
Dry and wet collected plastics are transported to the BASIC separation plant. The
collection includes transport to BASIC separation plant.
transport energy: 589 MJ/ton
transport costs: 178 Euro/ton

A4#4
About 20% of the PE/PP, PS and PET bottles are collected by the bottle bank and
are transported to the bottle separation plant.
transport energy: 3000 MJ/ton
transport costs: 330 Euro/ton

Separation
Allocation is per ton plastics output.

A4#11
The residue from the upgrading process is directed to MSWI or landfill. The allo-
cation for electricity input for separation is assumed to be identical as the allocation
for RDF low (A4#14).
electricity input 3657 MJ/ton
transport energy 165 MJ/ton
transport & separation costs 167 Euro/ton

A4#12
Separated plastics fraction from the upgrading process, either intended for feed
stock (FR) or for mixed plastics (MPR) destination. This flow is derived from RDF
and is produced by a separation process. Separation includes a sifter, a pulper and
an upgrader.
electricity input 3657 MJ/ton
transport & separation costs in the case of feedstock 630 Euro/ton
in the case of mixed plastics 590 Euro/ton
transport energy in the case of feedstock 878 MJ/ton
in the case of mixed plastics 439 MJ/ton
 TNO-report

16 of 127 TNO-MEP R 2000/119

Appendices

A4#13
Plastic residues in pulp (paper fraction) after pulper are not allocated in this study
(cut off flow).

A4#14
Low RDF from the sifter and destinated for MSWI or landfill.
electricity input 3657 MJ/ton
transport en sep. costs 167 Euro/ton
transport energy 165 MJ/ton

A4#15
Plastics in fines fraction from the BASIC separation and transported to landfill or
MSWI.
electricity input 0 MJ/ton
separation & transport costs 167 Euro/ton
transport energy 165 MJ/ton

A4#16
Residue of the Bottle Bank upgrading; the allocation is assumed to be identical as
the bottles output of the Bottle Bank.(A4#17)

A4#17
Collected bottles are type sorted (upgraded) for MR recycling.
electricity input 324 MJ/ton
separation and transport costs 110 Euro/ton
transport energy 878 MJ/ton

Application:
Allocation is per ton plastics input.

The calculation of in/outputs is described in appendix A3 (allocation model) and

appendix A4 (results). Overview of application flows:
A4#12 Feedstock (or MPR application)
A4#17 Regranulation followed by
material recycling
A4#11 Landfill or MSWI
A4#14 ditto
A4#15 ditto
A4#16 ditto
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 17 of 127

Appendices

Route A5: Yellow bag

Processes and flows:

INPUT COLLECTION SEPARATION APPLICATION

1 kg 2 kg 4 kg 10 kg
MSW nett packaging Sorting Bottles Preparation Rec Bottles
0.718 0.481 0.121 0.115

5 kg 11 kg
Films Preparation MixedFilm
0.110 0.104

6 kg 12 kg
Mixed Plastic Preparation Feed
0.243 0.241

9 kg
Prepar. Res
0.014

7 kg 13 kg
Separ res Sorting res
0.004 0.018

8 14 kg
Metals 0.000 Metals
0.004 0.004

3 kg 15 kg
residual Residual MSW residual
0.237 0.237

Distribution figures:
Large films Small films Bottles Others
Collection
Nett packaging 67% 67% 67% 67%
Residual 33% 33% 33% 33%
Sorting
Films 95% 0.25% 1.25% 0.25%
Bottles 1.25% 0.25% 95% 0.25%
Mixed Plastic 1.25% 99% 1.25% 99%
Metals 1.25% 0.25% 1.25% 0.25%
Separ res 1.25% 0.25% 1.25% 0.25%
Preparation
Rec. Bottles 0% 0% 95% 0%
Prepar res 100% 100% 5% 100%

Mixed Film 95% 0% 0% 0%

Prepar. Res 5% 100% 100% 100%

Feed 99% 99% 99% 99%

Prepar. Res 1% 1% 1% 1%
 TNO-report

18 of 127 TNO-MEP R 2000/119

Appendices

Collection
Allocation is per ton plastics collected.

A5#2
About 67% of the MSW packaging plastics are collected by the yellow bag system
and are directed to the separation plant
transport energy: 2639 MJ/ton
transport costs: 592 Euro/ton

A5#3
Integral collection and transport of residual MSW packaging plastics by truck.
transport energy: 467 MJ/ton
transport costs: 133 Euro/ton

Separation:
Allocation is per ton plastics output.

A5#10
Type separated bottle plastics (after sorting and preparation) and intended for mate-
rial recycling (MR) destination
electricity input 2530 MJ/ton
separation & transport costs 630 Euro/ton
transport energy 878 MJ/ton

A5#11
Mixed film plastics (after sorting and preparation) and intended for mixed plastic
recycling (MPR) destination.
electricity input 2530 MJ/ton
separation & transport costs 590 Euro/ton
transport energy 439 MJ/ton

A5#12
Mixed plastics (after sorting and preparation) and intended for feedstock recycling
(FR) destination
electricity input 2530 MJ/ton
separation & final transport costs 630 Euro/ton
transport energy 878 MJ/ton

A5#13
Plastic residues (from separation and preparation) directed to MSWI or landfill
electricity input 0 MJ/ton
separation & final transport costs 565 Euro/ton
transport energy 165 MJ/ton
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 19 of 127

Appendices

A5#14
Plastic residues in metals fraction after sorting are not allocated in this study.

Application
Allocation is per ton plastics input.

The calculation of in/outputs is described in appendix A3 (allocation model) and

appendix A4 (results). Overview of the application flows:
A5#10 Regranulation followed by material recycling
A5#11 Mixed film for mixed plastics application
A5#12 Mixed plastics for feedstock application
A5#14 Cut off flow, negelected in calculations.
A5#13 residues to Landfill or MSWI
A5#15 ditto
 TNO-report

20 of 127 TNO-MEP R 2000/119

Appendices

Route B1: IW integral

Processes and flows:

INPUT COLLECTION APPLICATION

1 kg 2 kg 3 kg
IW integral IW integral
0.282 0.282 0.282

Distribution figures:
Large films Small films Crates etc. Others
Collection
Integral 100% 100% 100% 100%

Collection:
Allocation is per ton plastics collected

B1#2
Integral collection and transport residual IW plastics by truck; destination is MSWI
or landfill.
transport energy input: 1500 MJ/ton plastics
transport costs: 100 Euro/ton plastics

Application:

The destination of IW integral collected waste is MSWI or Landfill. The calcula-

tion of in/outputs is described in appendix A3 (allocation model) and appendix A4
(results). Overview of application flows:
B1#3 Landfill or MSWI
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 21 of 127

Appendices

Route B2: Separate collection IW plastic mono stream

Processes and flows:

INPUT COLLECTION SEPARATION APPLICATION

1 kg 2 kg 4 kg
IW integral IWintegral
0.282 0.149 0.149

5 kg
IND.rigids
0.045

3 kg 6 kg
collect Separation IND.films
0.133 0.075

7 kg
SEP res
0.013

Distribution figures:

Large films Small films Crates etc. Others

Collection
Integral 46% 100% 33% 100%
Collect 54% 0% 67% 0%
Separation
IND.films 90% - - -
IND.rigids - - 90% -
SEP res 10% - 10% -

Collection :
Allocation is per ton plastics collected

B2#2
Integral collected residual IW plastics are transported by truck; destination is
MSWI or landfill.
energy transport input: 1500 MJ/ton plastics
transport costs: 100 Euro/ton plastics

B2#3
About half of the industrial films (= 54% of large films) is collected separately
from other IW. Also 67% of the industrial crates and pallets of IW plastics is sepa-
rately collected. (Residue IW is collected integral via B2#2).
films, transport energy input: 3000 MJ/ton films
 TNO-report

22 of 127 TNO-MEP R 2000/119

Appendices

films, transport costs: 60 Euro/ton films

crates & pallets, transport energy input: 3000 MJ/ton crates
crates & pallets transport costs: 80 Euro/ton crates

Separation:
Allocation is per ton plastics output

B2#5
The destination of about 90% of separately collected industrial crates, pallets etc. is
mechanical recycling (MR) and 10% of the collected crates, pallets etc. is rejected.
IND rigids, etc, separation & final transport costs 80 Euro/ton
IND rigids, etc, transport energy 878 MJ/ton

B2#6
Separately collected industrial films are sorted and upgraded. Destination of the
sorted batches is mechanical recycling (MR). Efficiency/yield is about 90% and
consequently 10% of the collected films is rejected.
IND films, electricity input 90 MJ/ton
IND films, separation & final transport costs 105 Euro/ton
IND films, transport energy 878 MJ/ton

B2#7
Rejected industrial films and crates, pallets etc. are directed to MSWI or landfill.
SEP res, transport costs 15 Euro/ton
SEP res, transport energy 165 MJ/tonkm

Application
Allocation is per ton plastics input.

The calculation of in/outputs is described in appendix A3 (allocation model) and

appendix A4 (results). Overview of application flows:
B2#5 Regranulation and pallet/
crate recycling
B2#6 Regranulation and film
recycling
B2#7 MSWI or landfill
B2#4 ditto
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 23 of 127

Appendices

Route B3: Separate collection IW plastics including mixed plastics

Processes and flows:

INPUT COLLECTION SEPARATION APPLICATION

1 kg 2 kg 4 kg
IW integral IWintegral
0.282 0.074 0.074

5 kg
IND.mixed
0.067

3 kg 6 kg
collect Separation IND.films
0.208 0.075

7 kg
IND.rigids
0.045

8 kg
SEP res
0.021

Distribution figures:
Large films Small films Crates etc. Others
Collection
Integral 23% 50% 16% 50%
Collect 77% 50% 84% 50%
Separation
IND.films 63% 0% - -
IND.rigids - 0% 72% -
IND.mixed 27% 90% 18% 90%
SEP res(idue) 10% 10% 10% 10%
 TNO-report

24 of 127 TNO-MEP R 2000/119

Appendices

Collection:
Allocation is per ton plastics collected

B3#2
Integral collection and transport of residual IW plastics by truck; destination is
MSWI or landfill.
transport energy input: 1500 MJ/ton plastics
transport costs: 100 Euro/ton plastics

B3#3
More than 50% of the industrial films (= 54% of large films) is collected separately
from other IW. Also 67% of the industrial crates and pallets of IW plastics is sepa-
rately collected. In addition to the collection of plastic mono-streams there is a col-
lection of mixed IW plastics. About 50% of all residual (no mono-stream collec-
tion) plastics is collected as IW mixed plastics. (Resulting IW plastics are collected
integral via B3#2) .
films, transport energy input: 3000 MJ/ton films
films, transport costs: 60 Euro/ton films
crates & pallets, transport energy input: 3000 MJ/ton crates
crates & pallets, transport costs: 80 Euro/ton crates
mixed industrial plastics, transport energy input 3000 MJ/ton
mixed industrial plastics, transport costs: 70 Euro/ton

Separation:
Allocation is per ton plastics output

B3#5
Colllected mixed industrial plastics are sorted and upgraded. Destination is me-
chanical recycling (MPR) or feedstock recycling (FR). Efficiency/yield is about
90% and consequently 10% of collected mixed plastics is rejected.
IND mixed, electricity input 90 MJ/ton
IND mixed, separation & final transport costs 65 Euro/ton
IND mixed, transport energy 439 MJ/ton

B3#6
Separately collected industrial films are sorted and upgraded. Destination is me-
chanical recycling (MR). Efficiency/yield is about 90% and 10% of films is re-
jected.
IND films, separation electricity input 90 MJ/ton
IND films, separation & final transport-costs 105 Euro/ton
IND films, transport energy 878 MJ/ton

B3#7
Destination of about 90% separately collected industrial crates, pallets etc. is me-
chanical recycling (MR) and 10% of crates, pallets etc. is rejected.
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 25 of 127

Appendices

IND crates, transport costs 80 Euro/ton

IND crates, transport energy 750 MJ/ton

B3#8
Rejected industrial films, crates, pallets, mixed plastics etc. are routed to MSWI or
landfill.
SEP res, transport costs 15 Euro/ton
SEP res, transport energy 165 MJ/ton

Application
Allocation is per ton plastics input.

The calculation of in/outputs is described in appendix A3 (allocation model) and

appendix A4 (results). Overview of application flows:
B3#5 Feestock or mixed
plastics recycling
B3#6 Regranulation and
film recycling
B3#7 Regranualtion and pallet/
crate recycling
B2#4 MSWI or landfill
B2#8 ditto

Composition of the flows for mechanical recycling, feedstock recycling, mixed

plastics recycling, energy recovery and landfill.

Table A2.1 presents the elemental (chemical)composition of the plastic

fractions (flows) to ER or landfill. Table A2.2 shows the results of plastics
for MR, MPR and FR purposes The codes of flows correspond with the
codes mentioned in the preceeding paragraphs of appendix A2.
 26 of 127

Table A2.1 Composition of plastic flows with destination ER or Landfill.

Flow A1#3 A2#5 A2#6 A3#10 A3#13 A3#14 A4#11 A4#14 A4#15 A4#16 A5#13 A5#15 B1#3 B2#4 B2#7 B3#4 B3#8

MJ/kg.dsp LHV 36.1 32.2 36.2 38.1 34.3 34.4 38.2 34.4 34.6 32.2 35.0 36.1 41.0 40.7 41.2 40.7 41.0
w%/kg.dsp Ash 4.0 1.3 4.2 4.6 3.5 3.5 4.7 3.7 3.7 1.3 3.6 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
w%/kg.dsp C 75.4 72.8 75.5 76.7 74.0 74.1 76.8 74.1 74.2 72.8 73.6 75.4 81.9 82.2 81.5 82.2 81.7
H 10.8 9.1 10.9 12.2 9.7 9.8 12.3 9.8 9.9 9.1 10.6 10.8 13.2 12.8 13.6 12.8 13.3
N 0.09 0.05 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.08 0.08 0.05 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
O 4.4 16.6 3.8 1.9 6.8 6.6 1.6 6.0 5.8 16.6 6.5 4.4 0.06 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.04
S 0.13 0.02 0.13 0.17 0.09 0.09 0.17 0.10 0.10 0.02 0.11 0.13 0.16 0.15 0.16 0.15 0.16
Cl 5.2 0.1 5.4 4.4 5.8 5.8 4.5 6.3 6.2 0.1 5.5 5.2 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21
F 0.0018 0.0020 0.0018 0.0018 0.0017 0.0017 0.0018 0.0017 0.0017 0.0020 0.0018 0.0018 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020
mg/kg.dsp As 0.41 0.40 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.40 0.41 0.41 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
Cd 11.02 0.43 11.52 9.22 12.45 12.34 9.41 13.36 13.21 0.43 11.17 11.02 3.19 3.12 3.27 3.12 3.22
Co 4.06 13.73 3.60 2.37 5.76 5.63 2.12 5.15 5.03 13.73 5.85 4.06 1.73 1.71 1.76 1.71 1.74
Cr 14.6 2.9 15.1 13.9 14.5 14.5 14.2 15.3 15.3 2.9 11.7 14.6 19.5 19.6 19.3 19.6 19.4
Cu 62.2 30.2 63.7 60.5 63.2 63.1 61.2 65.7 65.6 30.2 60.8 62.2 35.8 36.1 35.5 36.1 35.7
Hg 0.40 0.57 0.40 0.47 0.37 0.37 0.47 0.35 0.35 0.57 0.46 0.40 0.34 0.32 0.35 0.32 0.34
Mn 8.7 9.2 8.7 6.4 10.5 10.4 6.4 10.6 10.4 9.2 8.6 8.7 5.0 5.6 4.4 5.6 4.8
Ni 5.7 2.7 5.8 2.2 7.9 7.7 2.2 8.3 8.1 2.7 3.7 5.7 12.9 12.8 13.1 12.8 13.0
Pb 56.9 2.8 59.5 46.3 65.0 64.4 47.2 69.8 68.9 2.8 56.7 56.9 15.7 16.4 14.8 16.4 15.4
Sb 32.5 110.8 28.8 16.9 47.6 46.4 14.9 42.8 41.7 110.8 46.4 32.5 17.5 17.1 17.9 17.1 17.6
Se 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Sn 4.6 2.0 4.7 4.7 4.3 4.4 4.8 4.5 4.5 2.0 4.0 4.6 6.4 6.3 6.5 6.3 6.4
Te 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Tl 0.67 0.21 0.69 0.53 0.78 0.78 0.53 0.83 0.82 0.21 0.67 0.67 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
V 6.4 1.9 6.6 5.2 7.4 7.3 5.3 7.8 7.7 1.9 6.5 6.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4
Zn 582 162 601 380 694 686 384 735 724 162 385 582 956 1008 897 1008 937
TNO-MEP R 2000/119
TNO-report

Appendices
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 27 of 127

Appendices

Table A2.2 Composition of plastic flows with destination MR, MPR or FR.

Flowcode A2#4 A3#11 A4#12 A4#17 A5#10 A5#11 A5#12 B2#5 B2#6 B3#5 B3#6 B3#7

MJ/kg.dsp LHV 32.2 37.9 38.0 32.2 30.3 39.1 37.5 41.1 41.5 40.7 41.1 41.5
w%/kg.dsp Ash 1.3 4.6 4.6 1.3 1.8 5.0 4.7 5.0 3.7 4.5 5.0 3.7
w%/kg.dsp C 72.8 76.8 76.9 72.8 68.2 77.8 78.0 81.2 82.0 82.2 81.2 82.0
H 9.1 12.0 12.0 9.1 8.6 12.8 11.1 13.5 13.7 12.8 13.5 13.7
N 0.05 0.09 0.10 0.05 0.06 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
O 16.6 1.9 1.6 16.6 14.3 0.3 1.2 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00
S 0.02 0.16 0.17 0.02 0.03 0.19 0.15 0.20 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.10
Cl 0.1 4.5 4.6 0.1 7.0 4.1 4.7 0.10 0.40 0.21 0.10 0.40
F 0.0020 0.0018 0.0018 0.0020 0.0017 0.0018 0.0018 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020
mg/kg.dsp As 0.40 0.41 0.41 0.40 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
Cd 0.38 9.56 9.76 0.38 13.72 8.54 10.79 1.00 7.00 3.12 1.00 7.00
Co 13.79 2.32 2.09 13.79 11.89 1.16 1.42 1.00 3.00 1.71 1.00 3.00
Cr 2.9 14.7 15.0 2.9 6.0 14.7 18.9 14.0 28.0 19.6 14.0 28.0
Cu 30.1 61.2 61.9 30.1 59.7 60.4 64.3 45.0 20.0 36.1 45.0 20.0
Hg 0.57 0.44 0.44 0.57 0.51 0.47 0.32 0.50 0.10 0.32 0.50 0.10
Mn 9.2 6.9 6.9 9.2 11.2 5.7 8.9 4.0 5.0 5.6 4.0 5.0
Ni 2.7 3.4 3.5 2.7 3.7 1.7 8.5 1.0 33.0 12.8 1.0 33.0
Pb 2.6 48.6 49.6 2.6 69.2 42.7 57.2 5.0 31.0 16.4 5.0 31.0
Sb 111.4 17.1 15.2 111.4 96.2 6.7 12.0 5.0 39.0 17.1 5.0 39.0
Se 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Sn 2.0 4.8 4.9 2.0 2.4 5.0 5.5 5.0 9.0 6.3 5.0 9.0
Te 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Tl 0.20 0.56 0.56 0.20 0.84 0.48 0.67 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
V 1.9 5.4 5.5 1.9 8.3 4.7 6.2 1.0 2.0 1.4 1.0 2.0
Zn 161 466 477 161 198 379 869 377 1751 1008 377 1751
 TNO-report

28 of 127 TNO-MEP R 2000/119

Appendices

A.3 Application processes

Depending of the route the collected and separated plastic packaging plastics are
processed in a final treatment process (in this study called application process).
The calculated output as a result of the final treatment processes (energy, secund-
ary materials etc.) is depending of the process type, the mass flow and the com-
postion of the flows (see tables A2.1 and A2.2). The calculation (or allocation)
rules are described in this appendix A3.

Most application processes need energy and utilities as additional input for proc-
essing. In this study the resulting environmental impacts are linked by means of
background processes (see appendix A5)

The data of the application processes in this study will be of different quality.
These data are derived from different references with different underlying assump-
tions. With respect to the interpretation and evaluation of the results these
aspects have to be regarded as well.

A.3.1 Landfill

1. Process description

Plastic packaging waste is landfilled integrally with mixed domestic waste at spe-
cial landfilling sites, equipped with soil lining. After landfill, landfill gas emissions
and effluence of leachate, due to rainfall, will occur. Total operation time of the
sites amounts to about 15 to 25 years, after which the sites will be covered. After
covering the quantity of leachate and landfill gas emissions will decrease substan-
tially. The leachate is collected completely and the emitted landfill gas partly (so
called guarded stage). This will span 50 to 100 years after covering of the land-
filling site. During the guarded stage the leachate is treated in a purification plant
and drained at surface water, while treatment sludge is removed. Part of the col-
lected landfill gas is burned off and another part is applied in a gas engine in order
to generate electricity. The rest is emitted into the air. The following model, devel-
oped by TNO, allocates the energy consumption and emissions of the landfilling
site to the plastic flows going to landfill as described in appendix A2. Principles of
this model have been discussed in several workshops (15, 16).

Basically, included in this allocation, the (differences in) chemical compositions of

the packaging plastics are taken into account (table A.2.1). The calculations are
based on the following assumptions:
Guarded stage of 100 years, i.e. within the allocation model the consequences
of the landfilling site are allocated to the waste during a period of 100 years.
During the guarded stage 5% of the landfilled plastics is decomposed and con-
verted into landfill gas.
Finally 25% of the released landfill gas is applied in a gas engine, 25% is
burned off and 50% is emitted into the atmosphere.
No leakage of leachate into the soil.
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 29 of 127

Appendices

With respect to the technology of landfilling and to the waste composition, the
allocation model has been based on the average Dutch situation of 1985 -
1995.

2. Principles of allocation

Energy consumption:
Per ton of landfilled waste 1 kg diesel (42MJ) is burned on behalf of handling and
maintenance of the landfilling site. The flue gas emissions of diesel are based on
BUWAL 250 (18, table 16.9).
With respect to the consumption of electricity (input energy) at the landfilling site, it
is assumed that it just counterbalances the production of electricity from landfill gas
(output energy). Thus consumption and production of electricity of the landfilling
site will not be allocated.

Emissions into air:

Except for the flue gasses of diesel, the emissions into air originate from landfill
gas (i.e. untreated landfill gas, flare and gas engine). With the supposed
decomposition percentage of 5%, eventually 50 gr of carbon in landfill gas will
arise per kg of carbon of landfilled plastics. In addition all emissions are related to
the present carbon in landfill gas. The emission factors are given in table A.3.1.1
(27, 28, 30).
Only components mentioned in table A3.1.1 are taken into account for allocation.
For untreated landfill gas (50%), the components CO2 and methane are taken into
account (27, 28). Regarding the emissions of burned landfill gas (50%; flare and
gas engine) the flue gas components CO2, NOx, CO and dioxines are taken into ac-
count (30).
Emissions into water:
The emissions into water originate from the leachate after purification. Product
specific emissions are distinguished from process specific emissions.
The product specific emissions are calculated by means of distribution figures and
the purification percentages given in table A.3.1.2. The product specific emission is
directly proportional to the content of the concerning component in packaging plas-
tics. The distribution figures in table A.3.1.2 are based on 0.2 m3 leachate per ton
of landfilled waste (27, 29). Starting with the composition of average domestic
waste the concentrations in the untreated effluent will result in the values as given
in table A.3.1.2. Starting with the purification percentages in table A.3.1.2, the ef-
fluent concentrations of average waste will satisfy the limiting values in the
Netherlands.
The process specific emissions COD, N-total and phenol, as given in table A.3.1.3,
are independent of the composition of the landfilled waste. Starting from the puri-
fication percentages in table A.3.1.3, with respect to the process specific emissions,
the effluent concentrations will meet the limiting values in the Netherlands. Only
components mentioned in table A3.1.2 and table A3.1.3 are taken into account for
allocation in this study.
 TNO-report

30 of 127 TNO-MEP R 2000/119

Appendices

Residues:
The amount of landfilled waste (after a period of 100 years) is dependent of the as-
sumed material specific decomposition percentage. Thus according to a decompo-
sition percentage of 5%, one ton of landfilled plastic packaging results in 950 kg of
final waste. The amount of purification sludge per kg of landfilled plastics has been
calculated on the basis of the residues after the purification of the leachate.

Costs:
The costs of landfilling are based on a gate fee of 50 per ton of processed plas-
tics (2). In principle the gate fee is the sum of application costs, reduced with the
benefits of the landfilling. Since landfilling benefits are lacking application costs
equal the mentioned gate fee.

Table A.3.1.1 Emission factors landfill gas.

Captured Spill Parameter

Motor/flare untreated
CO2 kg 3.67 1.62 per kg C in gas
CH4 kg 0.74 per kg C in gas
Nox mg 5600 per kg C in gas
CO mg 7800 per kg C in gas
Dioxines ng 8.8 per kg C in gas

Table A.3.1.2 Product specific emissions into water.

Drain to drain % cleaning to surface water

mg/m3 % of components of drain % of components
SO4 360000 0.6% 30% 0.42%
Cl 2100000 6% 90% 0.60%
As 65 0.20% 0% 0.20%
Cd 15 0.10% 65% 0.04%
Cr 210 0.03% 75% 0.01%
Cu 85 0.001% 30% 0.0007%
Hg 2 0.06% 50% 0.03%
Pb 300 0.02% 80% 0.004%
Zn 6000 0.15% 99% 0.002%

Table A3.1.3 Process specific emissions into water.

Drain To drain % cleaning To surf.water

mg/m3 mg/kg waste of drain mg/kg waste
COD 1.2E+07 2.4E+03 99.7% 6.0E+00
Phenol 5.0E+02 1.0E-01 80% 2.0E-02
N-total 9.2E+05 1.8E+02 99% 2.0E+00
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 31 of 127

Appendices

3. Discussion

There are relatively important assumptions in this allocation model for landfill.
These assumtions concerning refererence characteristics, process system boundary
and time horizon are:
The underlying LCA study is applied for the European situation. Complete
data for the average European landfill are not available. For that reason the
landfill characteristics for the allocation model are derived from a typical
Dutch landfill site concerning aspects such as leachate purification, landfill gas
impacts etc.
An important aspect is the time horizon of 100 years. In this study the envi-
ronmental load of leachate within 100 years is based on a distribution of aver-
age composition of leachate (and average composition of waste). Some litera-
ture reported distributions based on availibily tests (leaching tests) which
would result in a remarkable higher load due to leachate from landfill.
The decomposition of plastics within 100 years is an approximate estimate and
probably an overestimation.
All effects in terms of emissions from landfilling after a period of 100 years are
not taken into account in the assessment.

Table A3.1.4 gives the allocation results of the allocation for all flows with destina-
tion landfill (elemental composition of these flows, see table A2.1)
Table A3.1.4 Allocated items in the case of landfill (per ton plastic landfilled).
32 of 127
A1#3 A2#5 A2#6 A3#10 A3#13 A3#14 A4#11 A4#14 A4#15 A4#16 A5#13 A5#15 B1#3 B2#4 B2#7 B3#4 B3#8
Input
diesel kg 1.0E+00 1.0E+00 1.0E+00 1.0E+00 1.0E+00 1.0E+00 1.0E+00 1.0E+00 1.0E+00 1.0E+00 1.0E+00 1.0E+00 1.0E+00 1.0E+00 1.0E+00 1.0E+00 1.0E+00
Emissions air
CO2 kg 3.1E+01 3.0E+01 3.1E+01 3.1E+01 3.0E+01 3.0E+01 3.1E+01 3.0E+01 3.0E+01 3.0E+01 3.0E+01 3.1E+01 3.3E+01 3.3E+01 3.3E+01 3.3E+01 3.3E+01
Methane kg 1.4E+01 1.4E+01 1.4E+01 1.4E+01 1.4E+01 1.4E+01 1.4E+01 1.4E+01 1.4E+01 1.4E+01 1.4E+01 1.4E+01 1.5E+01 1.5E+01 1.5E+01 1.5E+01 1.5E+01
CO2 kg 7.0E+01 6.6E+01 7.0E+01 7.0E+01 7.0E+01 7.0E+01 7.0E+01 7.0E+01 7.0E+01 6.6E+01 6.6E+01 7.0E+01 7.3E+01 7.7E+01 7.3E+01 7.7E+01 7.3E+01
NOx g 1.1E+02 1.0E+02 1.1E+02 1.1E+02 1.1E+02 1.1E+02 1.1E+02 1.1E+02 1.1E+02 1.0E+02 1.0E+02 1.1E+02 1.1E+02 1.2E+02 1.1E+02 1.2E+02 1.1E+02
CO g 1.5E+02 1.4E+02 1.5E+02 1.5E+02 1.5E+02 1.5E+02 1.5E+02 1.5E+02 1.5E+02 1.4E+02 1.4E+02 1.5E+02 1.6E+02 1.6E+02 1.6E+02 1.6E+02 1.6E+02
Dioxin nan 1.7E+02 1.6E+02 1.7E+02 1.7E+02 1.7E+02 1.7E+02 1.7E+02 1.7E+02 1.7E+02 1.6E+02 1.6E+02 1.7E+02 1.8E+02 1.8E+02 1.8E+02 1.8E+02 1.8E+02
og
Emissions water
SO4 kg 1.1E-02 1.8E-03 1.1E-02 1.4E-02 7.6E-03 7.8E-03 1.4E-02 8.0E-03 8.2E-03 1.8E-03 9.5E-03 1.1E-02 1.3E-02 1.3E-02 1.3E-02 1.3E-02 1.3E-02
Cl kg 3.0E-01 7.1E-03 3.2E-01 2.6E-01 3.4E-01 3.4E-01 2.7E-01 3.7E-01 3.6E-01 7.1E-03 3.2E-01 3.0E-01 1.2E-02 1.2E-02 1.3E-02 1.2E-02 1.2E-02
As kg 8.1E-07 7.8E-07 8.1E-07 8.0E-07 8.1E-07 8.1E-07 8.0E-07 8.1E-07 8.1E-07 7.8E-07 8.1E-07 8.1E-07 7.8E-07 7.8E-07 7.8E-07 7.8E-07 7.8E-07
Cd kg 3.8E-06 1.5E-07 4.0E-06 3.2E-06 4.3E-06 4.2E-06 3.2E-06 4.6E-06 4.5E-06 1.5E-07 3.8E-06 3.8E-06 1.1E-06 1.1E-06 1.1E-06 1.1E-06 1.1E-06
Cr kg 1.1E-06 2.2E-07 1.1E-06 1.0E-06 1.1E-06 1.1E-06 1.0E-06 1.1E-06 1.1E-06 2.2E-07 8.6E-07 1.1E-06 1.4E-06 1.4E-06 1.4E-06 1.4E-06 1.4E-06
Cu kg 4.3E-07 2.1E-07 4.4E-07 4.2E-07 4.3E-07 4.3E-07 4.2E-07 4.5E-07 4.5E-07 2.1E-07 4.2E-07 4.3E-07 2.5E-07 2.5E-07 2.4E-07 2.5E-07 2.5E-07
Hg kg 1.2E-07 1.7E-07 1.2E-07 1.4E-07 1.1E-07 1.1E-07 1.4E-07 1.0E-07 1.0E-07 1.7E-07 1.4E-07 1.2E-07 9.9E-08 9.5E-08 1.0E-07 9.5E-08 1.0E-07
Pb kg 2.2E-06 1.1E-07 2.3E-06 1.8E-06 2.5E-06 2.5E-06 1.9E-06 2.7E-06 2.7E-06 1.1E-07 2.2E-06 2.2E-06 6.1E-07 6.4E-07 5.8E-07 6.4E-07 6.0E-07
Zn kg 8.5E-06 2.4E-06 8.8E-06 5.6E-06 1.0E-05 1.0E-05 5.7E-06 1.1E-05 1.1E-05 2.4E-06 5.7E-06 8.5E-06 1.4E-05 1.5E-05 1.3E-05 1.5E-05 1.4E-05
COD kg 5.9E-03 5.9E-03 5.9E-03 5.9E-03 5.9E-03 5.9E-03 5.9E-03 5.9E-03 5.9E-03 5.9E-03 5.9E-03 5.9E-03 5.9E-03 5.9E-03 5.9E-03 5.9E-03 5.9E-03
Phenol kg 2.0E-05 2.0E-05 2.0E-05 2.0E-05 2.0E-05 2.0E-05 2.0E-05 2.0E-05 2.0E-05 2.0E-05 2.0E-05 2.0E-05 2.0E-05 2.0E-05 2.0E-05 2.0E-05 2.0E-05
N-total kg 2.0E-03 2.0E-03 2.0E-03 2.0E-03 2.0E-03 2.0E-03 2.0E-03 2.0E-03 2.0E-03 2.0E-03 2.0E-03 2.0E-03 2.0E-03 2.0E-03 2.0E-03 2.0E-03 2.0E-03
Emissions soil
SO4 kg 3.1E-04 5.2E-05 3.2E-04 4.1E-04 2.2E-04 2.3E-04 4.2E-04 2.3E-04 2.4E-04 5.2E-05 2.8E-04 3.1E-04 3.8E-04 3.7E-04 3.9E-04 3.7E-04 3.8E-04
Cl kg 6.2E-02 1.4E-03 6.5E-02 5.3E-02 7.0E-02 6.9E-02 5.4E-02 7.5E-02 7.4E-02 1.4E-03 6.6E-02 6.2E-02 2.5E-03 2.5E-03 2.6E-03 2.5E-03 2.5E-03
As kg 1.6E-08 1.6E-08 1.6E-08 1.6E-08 1.7E-08 1.7E-08 1.6E-08 1.7E-08 1.7E-08 1.6E-08 1.6E-08 1.6E-08 1.6E-08 1.6E-08 1.6E-08 1.6E-08 1.6E-08
Cd kg 2.2E-07 1.1E-08 2.4E-07 1.9E-07 2.6E-07 2.6E-07 1.9E-07 2.8E-07 2.8E-07 1.1E-08 2.3E-07 2.3E-07 6.3E-08 6.6E-08 5.9E-08 6.6E-08 6.2E-08
Cr kg 8.8E-08 1.8E-08 9.1E-08 8.4E-08 8.7E-08 8.7E-08 8.5E-08 9.2E-08 9.2E-08 1.8E-08 7.0E-08 8.8E-08 1.2E-07 1.2E-07 1.2E-07 1.2E-07 1.2E-07
Cu kg 1.2E-08 6.0E-09 1.3E-08 1.2E-08 1.3E-08 1.3E-08 1.2E-08 1.3E-08 1.3E-08 6.0E-09 1.2E-08 1.2E-08 7.2E-09 7.2E-09 7.1E-09 7.2E-09 7.1E-09
Hg kg 4.8E-09 6.8E-09 4.7E-09 5.6E-09 4.4E-09 4.4E-09 5.6E-09 4.2E-09 4.3E-09 6.8E-09 5.5E-09 4.8E-09 4.0E-09 3.9E-09 4.2E-09 3.9E-09 4.1E-09
Pb kg 2.3E-07 1.1E-08 2.4E-07 1.9E-07 2.6E-07 2.6E-07 1.9E-07 2.8E-07 2.8E-07 1.1E-08 2.3E-07 2.3E-07 6.3E-08 6.6E-08 5.9E-08 6.6E-08 6.2E-08
Zn kg 1.7E-05 4.9E-06 1.8E-05 1.1E-05 2.1E-05 2.1E-05 1.2E-05 2.2E-05 2.2E-05 4.9E-06 1.2E-05 1.7E-05 2.9E-05 3.0E-05 2.7E-05 3.0E-05 2.8E-05
COD kg 4.7E-02 4.7E-02 4.7E-02 4.7E-02 4.7E-02 4.7E-02 4.7E-02 4.7E-02 4.7E-02 4.7E-02 4.7E-02 4.7E-02 4.7E-02 4.7E-02 4.7E-02 4.7E-02 4.7E-02
Phenol kg 6.0E-06 6.0E-06 6.0E-06 6.0E-06 6.0E-06 6.0E-06 6.0E-06 6.0E-06 6.0E-06 6.0E-06 6.0E-06 6.0E-06 6.0E-06 6.0E-06 6.0E-06 6.0E-06 6.0E-06
N-total kg 3.7E-03 3.7E-03 3.7E-03 3.7E-03 3.7E-03 3.7E-03 3.7E-03 3.7E-03 3.7E-03 3.7E-03 3.7E-03 3.7E-03 3.7E-03 3.7E-03 3.7E-03 3.7E-03 3.7E-03
Residue in deposit
undefined kg 9.5E+02 9.5E+02 9.5E+02 9.5E+02 9.5E+02 9.5E+02 9.5E+02 9.5E+02 9.5E+02 9.5E+02 9.5E+02 9.5E+02 9.5E+02 9.5E+02 9.5E+02 9.5E+02 9.5E+02
undefined kg 1.1E+01 2.6E-01 1.1E+01 9.4E+00 1.2E+01 1.2E+01 9.6E+00 1.3E+01 1.3E+01 2.6E-01 1.2E+01 1.1E+01 4.6E-01 4.5E-01 4.7E-01 4.5E-01 4.6E-01
(H)
TNO-MEP R 2000/119
TNO-report

Appendices
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 33 of 127

Appendices

A.3.2 Energy recovery: Municipal Solid Waste Incineration

1. Process decription

Incineration of mixed domestic waste takes place in special furnaces (Municipal

Solid Waste Incineration = MSWI). Mixed domestic waste is incinerated on grids in-
tegrally at temperatures of about 900C. The flue gasses are cleaned to a far-reaching
extent by use of additives, energy, etc. (FGC). The FGC requires an input of
Na(OH) and Ca(OH)2. The denox requires input of NH3 en CH4 (the latter as aid of
better draught of flue gasses). The remainder of the added ammonia is emitted via
the flue gas. Activated Carbon is applied as the last FGC step. The FGC residues
will be removed (fly ash, flue gas cleaning residue). Due to flue gas cleaning, the
MSWI water draining also generates emissions into surface water.
Bottom ash and boiler ashes are removed as a residual flow. The flue gas heat is ap-
plied for generation of energy (co-product).

The following model, developed by TNO, allocates the energy consumption, en-
ergy recovery and emissions of the MSWI to the plastic flows to be incinerated as
described in appendix A2. Principles of this model have been discussed in several
workshops (15, 16) and published in earlier reports (e.g. 25).

Regarding the MSWI, the principle of allocation of energy as well as additives

consumption and allocation of emissions and residues are based on the following
starting points:
The extent of flue gas cleaning is so intensive that the flue gas emissions of in-
cineration of average domestic waste precisely meet further specified flue gas
norms. In the base case, calculations just satisfy the Dutch FGC standard (table
A.3.2.1).
The net energy output of the MSWI substitutes energy on the basis of conven-
tional energy sources elsewhere. Starting point in the base case calculations is
the combination of electricity and heat. The electricity yield amounts to 20% of
the heating value of the waste, and the additional heat yield is 10% of the heat-
ing value.
Furthermore, with respect to the MSWI calculations, the own moisture and its
consequences on the heating value and energy output are taken into account.
Plastics in MSWI input are reported with water contents of 10% to 15% as de-
scribed in the Fraunhofer studies (3). The LHV is corrected for this moisture
content to calculate the real heating value and the energy recovery efficiency.
In practice different types of FGC with different inputs of additives, emissions
into water, etc. can be distinguished. Regarding the calculations two different
types of denox units are distinguished, selective non catalytic reduction
(SNCR) and selective catalytic reduction (SCR). At the same time a distinction
has been made between the MSWI with effluent FGC and the (semi) dry FGC
technology. Considering the base case calculations, starting point from this
 TNO-report

34 of 127 TNO-MEP R 2000/119

Appendices

point of view is the average Dutch MSWI (5), i.e. 63% (semi) dry FGC and
37% effluent FGC with 32% SNCR and 68% SCR.
The consumption of the remaining additives for the FGC (sulphides, HCl solu-
tion, electrolyte, flocking agents, etc.) is neglected within this framework, be-
cause in general the applied amounts are very small.

Table A.3.2.1 Product specific and process specific flue gas components and Dutch flue gas
emission standards.

Flue gas Dutch standards

cleaning efficiency (mg/Nm3)
Product specific
CO2 0% -
NOx 87% 70.00
SO2 95% 40.00
HCl 99% 10.00
HF 79% 1.00
Cd 94% 0.05
Hg 55% 0.05
As 99.7%
Co 100%
Cr 100%
Cu 100%
Mn 100%
Mo 100%
Ni 100% 1
Pb 99.4%
Sb 100%
Se 99.7%
Sn 99.4%
Te 100%
V 100%
Zn 99.5% -
Process specific
Dust/particles 100% 5
CH 90% 10
CO 50% 50
PAH 95% 0.0001
TEQ 99.9% 1.0E-07
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 35 of 127

Appendices

2. Allocation principle

Flue gasses:
Considering emissions in the flue gas of a MSWI a distinction is made between so-
called process specific components and product specific components. Emissions
of process specific components are only dependent of the heating value (LHV).
Environmental relevant process specific components (a.o. CO, CxHy) are given in
table A.3.2.1. The emissions are calculated on the basis of the emission factors
given in table A.3.2.2.
Regarding product specific components the flue gas emission is calculated on the
basis of composition, which is related to a theoretical basis. The relevant product
specific components (a.o. SO2, NOx) are given in table A.3.2.1. The emissions of
product specific components are calculated on the basis of composition data given in
table A.2.1, with the help of the distribution data given in table A.3.2.4 (semi dry
MSWI), respectively table A.3.2.3 (MSWI with effluent).
The emission factors discribed in table A.3.2.2 and the distribution factors de-
scribed in table A.3.2.3 and table A.3.2.4 have been based on mass balances with
respect to incineration of average domestic waste, including cleaning to meet the
table A.3.2.1 flue gas standards.

Emissions into surface water:

Regarding the MSWI with effluent emissions into surface water, also a distinction
has been made between so-called process specific components and product
specific components.

The emitted amounts of the process specific components (COD and PAH) are in-
dependent of the composition. The emissions are calculated on the basis of the
emission factors, given in table A.3.2.2. The effluent concentration of product spe-
cific components is dependent of the composition, as given in table A.2.1. These
emissions are calculated in a similar way as the flue gas emissions, by means of the
distribution figures given in table A.3.2.3 and table A.3.2.4.

Residues:
In general the amounts of fly ash and bottom ash are proportional to the so-called
ash content of the input of the MSWI. One kg of ash content results in 0.91 kg of
bottom ash and 0.09 kg of fly ash, in this study accounted as fly ash inc.(H) ,
leaving the MSWI.
All residues produced by the flue gas cleaning are added together to FGCR (flue gas
cleaning residue, including filter cake). The total amount can be calculated from the
composition and the distribution table (see tables A.3.2.3 and A.3.2.4). Per kg Cl the
FGC generates 1.82 kg of FGC residue (CaCl2.2H2O) and per kg S to the FGC gen-
erates 4.6 kg of FGC residue (CaSO4.2H2O).
 TNO-report

36 of 127 TNO-MEP R 2000/119

Appendices

Consumption of additives:
The consumption of NaOH and Ca(OH)2 is dependent on the amount of acidic
components HCl, HF and SO2 in the crude flue gas and the extent of flue gas clean-
ing. The concerning basic data are given in table A.3.2.5, respectively A.3.2.6. The
NaOH is mainly used for separation of SO2, while Ca(OH)2 is applied for separa-
tion of HCl. Per kg of S in FGC residue and effluent 2.4 kg of NaOH (50%) is ap-
plied. Per kg of Cl in FGC residue and effluent 1.3 kg Ca(OH)2 is applied. The con-
sumption of ammonia and methane regarding the denox unit is proportional to the N-
content and the extent of flue gas cleaning. Per kg of N, separated via the denox, 1.8
kg of NH3 and 14.8 m3 of CH4 is applied with respect to SNCR and 1.1 kg of NH3
and 19.7 m3 of CH4 is applied with respect to SCR. About 1.8% of the added NH3 is
released again via the flue gas in case of SNCR and 1.2% in case of SCR.
For all waste products, the amount of activated carbon per kg input is equal to 1 gr
per kg.

Consumption of energy:
For all input waste fractions, the own electricity consumption of the MSWI per kg
input is 100 Wh/kg input.

Costs:
The MSWI costs are based on a gate fee of 100 per ton plastics (2). The gate fee
is the sum of application costs reduced with the benefits of by-products of the
MSWI (energy).
The benefits of the energy recovery are determined on the basis of:
Electricity : benefits; 8,- per GJ
Heat : benefits; 2,- per GJ

Results:
Table A3.2.8 gives the results of the allocated items for all MSWI flows summa-
rised in table A2.1

Table A.3.2.2 Process specific MSWI emission factors (based on Dutch flue gas standards).

Process specific emissions Unit Value Parameter

Flue gas (Dutch standards)
Dust/particles mg 2.8 Per MJ input
CH mg 5.6 Per MJ input
CO mg 27.9 Per MJ input
PAH mg 4.5E-05 Per MJ input
TEQ mg 5.6E-08 Per MJ input
Effluent (MSWI with effluent)
COD mg 4.9E+00 Per kg input
PAH mg 6.0E-05 Per kg input
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 37 of 127

Appendices

Table A.3.2.3 Product specific distribution in a MSWI with water effluent (based on
Dutch flue gas emission standards).

Distribution of elements in a MSWI with water effluent (Dutch flue gas standards)
Element Air Water Residues Fly ash Slag
C 98.0% 0.00% 0.0% 1.0% 1.0%
N 3.9% 0.07% 0.0% 1.0% 1.0%
S 2.7% 0.24% 47.06% 5.0% 45.0%
Cl 0.8% 13.40% 58.80% 15.0% 12.0%
F 5.1% 0.65% 18.20% 16.0% 60.0%
Cd 5.0% 0.15% 4.85% 67.0% 23.0%
Hg 42.2% 0.0030% 47.8% 3.0% 7.0%
As 0.1% 0.001% 3.90% 25.0% 71.0%
Co 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 2.0% 97.5%
Cr 0.0% 0.002% 2.0% 6.0% 92.0%
Cu 0.0% 0.0002% 0.0% 4.0% 96.0%
Mn 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9.0% 91.0%
Mo 0.0% 0.0% 1.00% 14.0% 85.0%
Ni 0.0% 0.02% 0.00% 4.98% 95.0%
Pb 0.0% 0.003% 9.80% 23.0% 67.0%
Sb 0.0% 0.0% 2.00% 34.0% 64.0%
Se 0.2% 0.0% 6.80% 61.0% 32.0%
Sn 0.2% 0.01% 9.79% 23.0% 67.0%
Te 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9.0% 91.0%
V 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9.0% 91.0%
Zn 0.2% 0.002% 9.80% 27.0% 63.0%
 TNO-report

38 of 127 TNO-MEP R 2000/119

Appendices

Table A.3.2.4 Product specific distribution of a (semi) dry MSWI (based on Dutch flue
gas emission standards).

Distribution of elements in a (semi) dry MSWI

(Dutch flue gas standards)
Element Air Water Residues Fly ash Slag
C 98.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 1.0%
N 3.9% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 1.0%
S 2.7% 0.0% 47.30% 5.0% 45.0%
Cl 0.8% 0.0% 72.20% 15.0% 12.0%
F 5.1% 0.0% 18.90% 16.0% 60.0%
Cd 5.0% 0.0% 5.00% 67.0% 23.0%
Hg 42.2% 0.0% 47.8% 3.0% 7.0%
As 0.1% 0.0% 3.90% 25.0% 71.0%
Co 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 2.0% 97.5%
Cr 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 6.0% 92.0%
Cu 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.0% 96.0%
Mn 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9.0% 91.0%
Mo 0.0% 0.0% 1.00% 14.0% 85.0%
Ni 0.0% 0.0% 0.02% 5.0% 95.0%
Pb 0.0% 0.0% 9.80% 23.0% 67.0%
Sb 0.0% 0.0% 2.00% 34.0% 64.0%
Se 0.2% 0.0% 6.80% 61.0% 32.0%
Sn 0.2% 0.0% 9.80% 23.0% 67.0%
Te 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9.0% 91.0%
V 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9.0% 91.0%
Zn 0.2% 0.0% 9.80% 27.0% 63.0%
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 39 of 127

Appendices

3. Sensitivity analysis

In principle the type of FGC technology, FGC efficiency and energy recovery
efficiency are aspects which can differ considerably per country. Except for the
base MSWI case the following alternatives of the MSWI have been calculated con-
sidering the sensitivity analysis:
De FGC efficiency is as high as the flue gas emissions of average domestic
waste incineration precisely satisfies German FGC standards (table A.3.2.6).
The energy output of the MSWI substitutes heat only. The net yield amounts to
65% of the heating value of the waste. This (high) efficiency meets the actual
situation of the MSWI in St. Quentin in France (3).
Regarding the calculations the denox is based on only selective non catalytic
reduction (SNCR).
The calculations are based on (semi) dry FGC technology.
Regarding the costs of MSWI, a gate fee of 100 per ton is assumed.

The corresponding process specific emission factors, respectively product specific

distribution factors are given in table A.3.2.5 and table A.3.2.7.
Table A3.2.9 gives the the allocated items for flows summarised in table A2.1

Table A.3.2.5 Process specific MSWI emission factors (based on German flue gas
standards).

Process specific emissions Unit Value Parameter

Flue gas (German standards)
Dust/particles mg 2.8 per MJ input
CH mg 5.6 per MJ input
CO mg 27.9 per MJ input
PAH mg 4.5E-05 per MJ input
TEQ mg 5.6E-08 per MJ input
 TNO-report

40 of 127 TNO-MEP R 2000/119

Appendices

Table A.3.2.6 German flue gas emission standards.

Flue gas German standards

cleaning efficiency (mg/Nm3)
Product specific
CO2
NOx 64% 200.00
SO2 93% 50.00
HCl 99% 10.00
HF 79% 1.00
Cd 94% 0.05
Hg 55% 0.05
As 99.7%
Co 100%
Cr 100%
Cu 100%
Mn 100%
Mo 100%
Ni 100% 1
Pb 99.4%
Sb 100%
Se 99.7%
Sn 99.4%
Te 100%
V 100%
Zn 99.5% -
Process specific
Dust/particles 100% 5
CH 90% 10
CO 50% 50
PAH 95% 0.0001
TEQ 99.9% 1.0E-07
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 41 of 127

Appendices

Table A.3.2.7 Product specific distribution in a(semi) dry MSWI (based on German
flue gas emission standards).

Distribution of elements in a (semi) dry MSWI

(German flue gas standards)
Element Air Water Residues Fly ash Slag
C 98.0% 0% 0.0% 1.0% 1.0%
N 11.1% 0% 0.0% 1.0% 1.0%
S 3.4% 0% 46.6% 5.0% 45.0%
Cl 0.8% 0% 72.2% 15.0% 12.0%
F 5.1% 0% 18.9% 16.0% 60.0%
Cd 5.0% 0% 5.0% 67.0% 23.0%
Hg 42.2% 0% 47.8% 3.0% 7.0%
As 0.1% 0% 3.9% 25.0% 71.0%
Co 0.0% 0% 0.5% 2.0% 97.5%
Cr 0.0% 0% 2.0% 6.0% 92.0%
Cu 0.0% 0% 0.0% 4.0% 96.0%
Mn 0.0% 0% 0.0% 9.0% 91.0%
Mo 0.0% 0% 1.0% 14.0% 85.0%
Ni 0.0% 0% 0.0% 5.0% 95.0%
Pb 0.0% 0% 9.8% 23.0% 67.0%
Sb 0.0% 0% 2.0% 34.0% 64.0%
Se 0.2% 0% 6.8% 61.0% 32.0%
Sn 0.2% 0% 9.8% 23.0% 67.0%
Te 0.0% 0% 0.0% 9.0% 91.0%
V 0.0% 0% 0.0% 9.0% 91.0%
Zn 0.2% 0% 9.8% 27.0% 63.0%
Table A3.2.8 Allocated items in a MSWI per kg plastic (base case: MSWI with heat & electricity).
A1#3 A2#5 A2#6 A3#10 A3#13 A3#14 A4#11 A4#14 A4#15 A4#16 A5#13 A5#15 B1#3 B2#4 B2#7 B3#4 B3#8 42 of 127
INPUT
NH3 kg 3.2E-04 1.8E-04 3.2E-04 3.4E-04 2.9E-04 2.9E-04 3.5E-04 3.0E-04 3.0E-04 1.8E-04 2.9E-04 3.2E-04 3.6E-04 3.6E-04 3.6E-04 3.6E-04 3.6E-04
gas m3 4.3E-03 2.4E-03 4.4E-03 4.6E-03 3.9E-03 3.9E-03 4.7E-03 4.0E-03 4.1E-03 2.4E-03 3.9E-03 4.3E-03 4.9E-03 4.9E-03 4.9E-03 4.9E-03 4.9E-03
NaOH50% kg 1.5E-03 2.5E-04 1.5E-03 1.9E-03 1.0E-03 1.1E-03 2.0E-03 1.1E-03 1.1E-03 2.5E-04 1.3E-03 1.5E-03 1.8E-03 1.7E-03 1.8E-03 1.7E-03 1.8E-03
CaOH2 kg 4.9E-02 1.1E-03 5.1E-02 4.1E-02 5.5E-02 5.4E-02 4.2E-02 5.9E-02 5.8E-02 1.1E-03 5.1E-02 4.9E-02 2.0E-03 1.9E-03 2.0E-03 1.9E-03 2.0E-03
Act.Coke kg 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03
Electricity kWh 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-01
Emissions air
NH3 mg 4.6E+00 2.5E+00 4.7E+00 5.0E+00 4.2E+00 4.2E+00 5.0E+00 4.3E+00 4.4E+00 2.5E+00 4.2E+00 4.6E+00 5.3E+00 5.3E+00 5.3E+00 5.3E+00 5.3E+00
CO2 kg 2.7E+00 2.6E+00 2.7E+00 2.8E+00 2.7E+00 2.7E+00 2.8E+00 2.7E+00 2.7E+00 2.6E+00 2.6E+00 2.7E+00 2.9E+00 3.0E+00 2.9E+00 3.0E+00 2.9E+00
Dust/particles mg 8.9E+01 7.9E+01 9.0E+01 9.5E+01 8.4E+01 8.5E+01 9.5E+01 8.5E+01 8.5E+01 7.9E+01 8.7E+01 8.9E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+02 1.0E+02 1.0E+02 1.0E+02
CH mg 1.8E+02 1.6E+02 1.8E+02 1.9E+02 1.7E+02 1.7E+02 1.9E+02 1.7E+02 1.7E+02 1.6E+02 1.7E+02 1.8E+02 2.1E+02 2.0E+02 2.1E+02 2.0E+02 2.1E+02
CO mg 8.9E+02 7.9E+02 9.0E+02 9.5E+02 8.4E+02 8.5E+02 9.5E+02 8.5E+02 8.5E+02 7.9E+02 8.7E+02 8.9E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 1.0E+03
PAH mg 1.4E-03 1.3E-03 1.4E-03 1.5E-03 1.4E-03 1.4E-03 1.5E-03 1.4E-03 1.4E-03 1.3E-03 1.4E-03 1.4E-03 1.7E-03 1.6E-03 1.7E-03 1.6E-03 1.7E-03
Dioxins mg 1.8E-06 1.6E-06 1.8E-06 1.9E-06 1.7E-06 1.7E-06 1.9E-06 1.7E-06 1.7E-06 1.6E-06 1.7E-06 1.8E-06 2.1E-06 2.0E-06 2.1E-06 2.0E-06 2.1E-06
NOx kg 7.3E-05 4.0E-05 7.4E-05 7.9E-05 6.7E-05 6.7E-05 8.0E-05 6.9E-05 6.9E-05 4.0E-05 6.7E-05 7.3E-05 8.4E-05 8.4E-05 8.4E-05 8.4E-05 8.4E-05
SO2 kg 6.9E-05 1.2E-05 7.2E-05 9.2E-05 5.0E-05 5.1E-05 9.4E-05 5.2E-05 5.4E-05 1.2E-05 6.2E-05 6.9E-05 8.5E-05 8.3E-05 8.8E-05 8.3E-05 8.6E-05
HCl kg 4.1E-04 9.6E-06 4.3E-04 3.5E-04 4.7E-04 4.6E-04 3.6E-04 5.0E-04 5.0E-04 9.6E-06 4.4E-04 4.1E-04 1.7E-05 1.6E-05 1.7E-05 1.6E-05 1.7E-05
HF kg 9.1E-07 1.0E-06 9.0E-07 9.3E-07 8.8E-07 8.9E-07 9.3E-07 8.7E-07 8.8E-07 1.0E-06 9.1E-07 9.1E-07 1.0E-06 1.0E-06 1.0E-06 1.0E-06 1.0E-06
As mg 4.1E-04 4.0E-04 4.1E-04 4.1E-04 4.1E-04 4.1E-04 4.1E-04 4.1E-04 4.1E-04 4.0E-04 4.1E-04 4.1E-04 4.0E-04 4.0E-04 4.0E-04 4.0E-04 4.0E-04
Cd mg 5.5E-01 2.1E-02 5.8E-01 4.6E-01 6.2E-01 6.2E-01 4.7E-01 6.7E-01 6.6E-01 2.1E-02 5.6E-01 5.5E-01 1.6E-01 1.6E-01 1.6E-01 1.6E-01 1.6E-01
Hg mg 1.7E-01 2.4E-01 1.7E-01 2.0E-01 1.5E-01 1.6E-01 2.0E-01 1.5E-01 1.5E-01 2.4E-01 1.9E-01 1.7E-01 1.4E-01 1.4E-01 1.5E-01 1.4E-01 1.4E-01
Pb mg 1.1E-01 5.6E-03 1.2E-01 9.2E-02 1.3E-01 1.3E-01 9.4E-02 1.4E-01 1.4E-01 5.6E-03 1.1E-01 1.1E-01 3.1E-02 3.3E-02 2.9E-02 3.3E-02 3.1E-02
Se mg 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03
Sn mg 9.2E-03 4.0E-03 9.4E-03 9.4E-03 8.7E-03 8.7E-03 9.5E-03 9.0E-03 9.1E-03 4.0E-03 7.9E-03 9.2E-03 1.3E-02 1.3E-02 1.3E-02 1.3E-02 1.3E-02
Zn mg 1.2E+00 3.2E-01 1.2E+00 7.6E-01 1.4E+00 1.4E+00 7.7E-01 1.5E+00 1.4E+00 3.2E-01 7.7E-01 1.2E+00 1.9E+00 2.0E+00 1.8E+00 2.0E+00 1.9E+00
Emissions water
COD mg 1.8E+00 1.8E+00 1.8E+00 1.8E+00 1.8E+00 1.8E+00 1.8E+00 1.8E+00 1.8E+00 1.8E+00 1.8E+00 1.8E+00 1.8E+00 1.8E+00 1.8E+00 1.8E+00 1.8E+00
PAH mg 2.2E-05 2.2E-05 2.2E-05 2.2E-05 2.2E-05 2.2E-05 2.2E-05 2.2E-05 2.2E-05 2.2E-05 2.2E-05 2.2E-05 2.2E-05 2.2E-05 2.2E-05 2.2E-05 2.2E-05
N-total mg 2.2E-01 1.2E-01 2.3E-01 2.4E-01 2.1E-01 2.1E-01 2.5E-01 2.1E-01 2.1E-01 1.2E-01 2.1E-01 2.2E-01 2.6E-01 2.6E-01 2.6E-01 2.6E-01 2.6E-01
SO4 mg 3.4E+00 5.8E-01 3.5E+00 4.5E+00 2.4E+00 2.5E+00 4.6E+00 2.6E+00 2.7E+00 5.8E-01 3.1E+00 3.4E+00 4.2E+00 4.1E+00 4.3E+00 4.1E+00 4.2E+00
Cl mg 2.6E+03 6.0E+01 2.7E+03 2.2E+03 2.9E+03 2.9E+03 2.2E+03 3.1E+03 3.1E+03 6.0E+01 2.7E+03 2.6E+03 1.0E+02 1.0E+02 1.1E+02 1.0E+02 1.0E+02
F mg 4.3E-02 4.8E-02 4.2E-02 4.4E-02 4.2E-02 4.2E-02 4.4E-02 4.1E-02 4.1E-02 4.8E-02 4.3E-02 4.3E-02 4.8E-02 4.8E-02 4.8E-02 4.8E-02 4.8E-02
As mg 7.6E-07 7.4E-07 7.6E-07 7.6E-07 7.6E-07 7.6E-07 7.6E-07 7.7E-07 7.7E-07 7.4E-07 7.6E-07 7.6E-07 7.4E-07 7.4E-07 7.4E-07 7.4E-07 7.4E-07
Cd mg 6.1E-03 2.4E-04 6.4E-03 5.1E-03 6.9E-03 6.8E-03 5.2E-03 7.4E-03 7.3E-03 2.4E-04 6.2E-03 6.1E-03 1.8E-03 1.7E-03 1.8E-03 1.7E-03 1.8E-03
Cr mg 1.1E-04 2.2E-05 1.1E-04 1.0E-04 1.1E-04 1.1E-04 1.0E-04 1.1E-04 1.1E-04 2.2E-05 8.6E-05 1.1E-04 1.4E-04 1.5E-04 1.4E-04 1.5E-04 1.4E-04
Cu mg 4.6E-05 2.2E-05 4.7E-05 4.5E-05 4.7E-05 4.7E-05 4.5E-05 4.9E-05 4.9E-05 2.2E-05 4.5E-05 4.6E-05 2.7E-05 2.7E-05 2.6E-05 2.7E-05 2.6E-05
Hg mg 4.5E-06 6.3E-06 4.4E-06 5.2E-06 4.1E-06 4.1E-06 5.2E-06 3.9E-06 3.9E-06 6.3E-06 5.1E-06 4.5E-06 3.7E-06 3.6E-06 3.9E-06 3.6E-06 3.8E-06
Ni mg 4.2E-04 2.0E-04 4.3E-04 1.7E-04 5.8E-04 5.7E-04 1.7E-04 6.1E-04 6.0E-04 2.0E-04 2.8E-04 4.2E-04 9.6E-04 9.4E-04 9.7E-04 9.4E-04 9.6E-04
Pb mg 6.3E-04 3.1E-05 6.6E-04 5.1E-04 7.2E-04 7.2E-04 5.2E-04 7.7E-04 7.7E-04 3.1E-05 6.3E-04 6.3E-04 1.7E-04 1.8E-04 1.6E-04 1.8E-04 1.7E-04
Sn mg 1.2E-04 5.2E-05 1.2E-04 1.2E-04 1.1E-04 1.1E-04 1.2E-04 1.2E-04 1.2E-04 5.2E-05 1.0E-04 1.2E-04 1.7E-04 1.6E-04 1.7E-04 1.6E-04 1.7E-04
Zn mg 4.3E-03 1.2E-03 4.5E-03 2.8E-03 5.1E-03 5.1E-03 2.8E-03 5.4E-03 5.4E-03 1.2E-03 2.9E-03 4.3E-03 7.1E-03 7.5E-03 6.6E-03 7.5E-03 6.9E-03
Solid waste
FGCR (H) kg 0.066 0.002 0.069 0.058 0.073 0.073 0.059 0.079 0.078 0.002 0.069 0.066 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006
fly ash inc.(H) kg 0.008 0.001 0.008 0.007 0.009 0.009 0.007 0.01 0.01 0.001 0.008 0.008 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004
bottom ash kg 0.037 0.012 0.038 0.042 0.032 0.032 0.042 0.033 0.034 0.012 0.032 0.037 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041
Energy output
Electricity MJ 6.4E+00 5.6E+00 6.4E+00 6.8E+00 6.1E+00 6.1E+00 6.8E+00 6.1E+00 6.1E+00 5.6E+00 6.2E+00 6.4E+00 7.4E+00 7.3E+00 7.4E+00 7.3E+00 7.4E+00
Heat MJ 3.2E+00 2.8E+00 3.2E+00 3.4E+00 3.0E+00 3.0E+00 3.4E+00 3.0E+00 3.1E+00 2.8E+00 3.1E+00 3.2E+00 3.7E+00 3.7E+00 3.7E+00 3.7E+00 3.7E+00
TNO-MEP R 2000/119
TNO-report

Appendices
Table A3.2.9 Allocated items in a MSWI per kg plastic (sensitivity analysis: MSWI with heat output).
A1#3 A2#5 A2#6 A3#10 A3#13 A3#14 A4#11 A4#14 A4#15 A4#16 A5#13 A5#15 B1#3 B2#4 B2#7 B3#4 B3#8
TNO-report

Appendices

INPUT
NH3 kg 3.2E-04 1.8E-04 3.3E-04 3.5E-04 2.9E-04 2.9E-04 3.5E-04 3.0E-04 3.0E-04 1.8E-04 2.9E-04 3.2E-04 3.7E-04 3.7E-04 3.7E-04 3.7E-04 3.7E-04
gas m3 2.5E-03 1.4E-03 2.6E-03 2.8E-03 2.3E-03 2.3E-03 2.8E-03 2.4E-03 2.4E-03 1.4E-03 2.3E-03 2.5E-03 2.9E-03 2.9E-03 2.9E-03 2.9E-03 2.9E-03
TNO-MEP R 2000/119

NaOH50% kg 1.4E-03 2.4E-04 1.5E-03 1.9E-03 1.0E-03 1.1E-03 1.9E-03 1.1E-03 1.1E-03 2.4E-04 1.3E-03 1.4E-03 1.8E-03 1.7E-03 1.8E-03 1.7E-03 1.8E-03
CaOH2 kg 4.9E-02 1.1E-03 5.1E-02 4.1E-02 5.5E-02 5.4E-02 4.2E-02 5.9E-02 5.8E-02 1.1E-03 5.1E-02 4.9E-02 2.0E-03 1.9E-03 2.0E-03 1.9E-03 2.0E-03
Act.Coke kg 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03
Electricity kWh 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-01
Emissions air
NH3 mg 5.5E+00 3.1E+00 5.6E+00 6.0E+00 5.1E+00 5.1E+00 6.1E+00 5.2E+00 5.2E+00 3.1E+00 5.1E+00 5.5E+00 6.4E+00 6.4E+00 6.4E+00 6.4E+00 6.4E+00
CO2 kg 2.7E+00 2.6E+00 2.7E+00 2.8E+00 2.7E+00 2.7E+00 2.8E+00 2.7E+00 2.7E+00 2.6E+00 2.6E+00 2.7E+00 2.9E+00 3.0E+00 2.9E+00 3.0E+00 2.9E+00
Dust/particles mg 1.8E+02 1.6E+02 1.8E+02 1.9E+02 1.7E+02 1.7E+02 1.9E+02 1.7E+02 1.7E+02 1.6E+02 1.7E+02 1.8E+02 2.1E+02 2.0E+02 2.1E+02 2.0E+02 2.1E+02
CH mg 1.8E+02 1.6E+02 1.8E+02 1.9E+02 1.7E+02 1.7E+02 1.9E+02 1.7E+02 1.7E+02 1.6E+02 1.7E+02 1.8E+02 2.1E+02 2.0E+02 2.1E+02 2.0E+02 2.1E+02
CO mg 8.9E+02 7.9E+02 9.0E+02 9.5E+02 8.4E+02 8.5E+02 9.5E+02 8.5E+02 8.5E+02 7.9E+02 8.7E+02 8.9E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 1.0E+03 1.0E+03
PAH mg 1.4E-03 1.3E-03 1.4E-03 1.5E-03 1.4E-03 1.4E-03 1.5E-03 1.4E-03 1.4E-03 1.3E-03 1.4E-03 1.4E-03 1.7E-03 1.6E-03 1.7E-03 1.6E-03 1.7E-03
Dioxins mg 1.8E-06 1.6E-06 1.8E-06 1.9E-06 1.7E-06 1.7E-06 1.9E-06 1.7E-06 1.7E-06 1.6E-06 1.7E-06 1.8E-06 2.1E-06 2.0E-06 2.1E-06 2.0E-06 2.1E-06
Nox kg 2.1E-04 1.2E-04 2.1E-04 2.3E-04 1.9E-04 1.9E-04 2.3E-04 2.0E-04 2.0E-04 1.2E-04 1.9E-04 2.1E-04 2.4E-04 2.4E-04 2.4E-04 2.4E-04 2.4E-04
SO2 kg 8.6E-05 1.5E-05 9.0E-05 1.2E-04 6.2E-05 6.4E-05 1.2E-04 6.6E-05 6.7E-05 1.5E-05 7.8E-05 8.6E-05 1.1E-04 1.0E-04 1.1E-04 1.0E-04 1.1E-04
HCl kg 4.1E-04 9.6E-06 4.3E-04 3.5E-04 4.7E-04 4.6E-04 3.6E-04 5.0E-04 5.0E-04 9.6E-06 4.4E-04 4.1E-04 1.7E-05 1.6E-05 1.7E-05 1.6E-05 1.7E-05
HF kg 9.1E-07 1.0E-06 9.0E-07 9.3E-07 8.9E-07 8.9E-07 9.3E-07 8.8E-07 8.8E-07 1.0E-06 9.1E-07 9.1E-07 1.0E-06 1.0E-06 1.0E-06 1.0E-06 1.0E-06
As mg 4.1E-04 4.0E-04 4.1E-04 4.1E-04 4.1E-04 4.1E-04 4.1E-04 4.1E-04 4.1E-04 4.0E-04 4.1E-04 4.1E-04 4.0E-04 4.0E-04 4.0E-04 4.0E-04 4.0E-04
Cd mg 5.5E-01 2.1E-02 5.8E-01 4.6E-01 6.2E-01 6.2E-01 4.7E-01 6.7E-01 6.6E-01 2.1E-02 5.6E-01 5.5E-01 1.6E-01 1.6E-01 1.6E-01 1.6E-01 1.6E-01
Hg mg 1.7E-01 2.4E-01 1.7E-01 2.0E-01 1.5E-01 1.6E-01 2.0E-01 1.5E-01 1.5E-01 2.4E-01 1.9E-01 1.7E-01 1.4E-01 1.4E-01 1.5E-01 1.4E-01 1.4E-01
Pb mg 1.1E-01 5.6E-03 1.2E-01 9.2E-02 1.3E-01 1.3E-01 9.4E-02 1.4E-01 1.4E-01 5.6E-03 1.1E-01 1.1E-01 3.1E-02 3.3E-02 2.9E-02 3.3E-02 3.1E-02
Se mg 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03
Sn mg 9.2E-03 4.0E-03 9.4E-03 9.4E-03 8.7E-03 8.7E-03 9.5E-03 9.0E-03 9.1E-03 4.0E-03 7.9E-03 9.2E-03 1.3E-02 1.3E-02 1.3E-02 1.3E-02 1.3E-02
Zn mg 1.2E+00 3.2E-01 1.2E+00 7.6E-01 1.4E+00 1.4E+00 7.7E-01 1.5E+00 1.4E+00 3.2E-01 7.7E-01 1.2E+00 1.9E+00 2.0E+00 1.8E+00 2.0E+00 1.9E+00
Solid waste
FGCR (H) kg 0.071 0.002 0.074 0.062 0.079 0.078 0.063 0.084 0.084 0.002 0.074 0.071 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006
fly ash inc.(H) kg 0.008 0.001 0.008 0.007 0.009 0.009 0.007 0.010 0.010 0.001 0.008 0.008 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004
bottom ash kg 0.037 0.012 0.038 0.042 0.032 0.032 0.042 0.033 0.034 0.012 0.032 0.037 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041
Energy output
Heat MJ 2.1E+01 1.8E+01 2.1E+01 2.2E+01 2.0E+01 2.0E+01 2.2E+01 2.0E+01 2.0E+01 1.8E+01 2.0E+01 2.1E+01 2.4E+01 2.4E+01 2.4E+01 2.4E+01 2.4E+01
43 of 127
 TNO-report

44 of 127 TNO-MEP R 2000/119

Appendices

A.3.3 Energy recovery: Cement kiln

In this project an alternative for energy recovery in a MSWI is studied. A part of

the separately collected plastic fractions in scenarios R35yHE and R50yHE are
prepared for high efficiency energy recovery in a cement kiln (co-combustion).

The process description of co-combustion of packaging plastics in a cement kiln is

given in the Fraunhofer study (4). Co-combustion of plastics in a cement kiln will
substitute a part of the combustion of coal. According to the Fraunhofer study co-
combustion requires an additional electriciy input (plastics preparation). For plastic
combustion per MJ heating value a decrease of the CO2 emission is observed in
comparison with coal combustion. Other emissions per MJ heating value input are
assumed to be completely identical for coal and plastics combustion. As a conse-
quence these emissions from plastics processing are leveled out by substituted
emissions from substituted coal. Calculations in this study are based on the follow-
ing characteristics:

Input energy:
Electricity: 283 MJ/ton plastics

Coal substitution and avoided CO2 emissions:

Co-combustion of plastics results in a substition of 1 MJ coal per MJ plastic
(LHV). On an average basis 1 ton of plastics substitutes 1.43 ton coal.
As a consequence of co-combustion of plastics a CO2 emission of 0.02 kg per MJ
plastics is avoided compared with coal (4).

Costs:
The costs of co-combustion of packaging plastics in a cement kiln are based on a
gatefee of Euro 100 per ton plastics (2). This gatefee is a result of the applicition
costs (200 Euro per ton plastics) reduced with the benefits of the substituted coal
input (100 Euro per ton plasics).

A.3.4 Feedstock recovery: Blast Furnace

In the base case scenarios of this study feedstock recycling (FR) is presented by the
blast furnace process, according the process description of the Blast Furnace proc-
ess of the Bremen Steel Works (3). In this process plasics will substitute the input
of oil as a reduction agent. Characteristics of the process are described in the
Fraunhofer report (3).

According to the Fraunhofer study plastics feedstock recycling requires an addi-

tional electriciy input (for plastics preparation as feedstock). Emissions caused by
plastics feedstock recycling per MJ input are assumed to be completely identical
with emissions from oil as feedstock. As a consequence emissions from plastics
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 45 of 127

Appendices

processing are leveled out by substituted emissions from substituted oil as feed-
stock.
Calculations in this study are based on the following characteristics:

Input energy:
Electricity: 142 MJ/ton plastics

Oil substitution:
Feedstock recycling of plastics results in a substition of 1 MJ oil per MJ plastic in-
put (LHV). On an average basis 1 ton of packaging plastics substitutes an input of
0.97 ton oil.

Costs:
The costs of feedstock recycling in a Blast Furnace process are based on a gatefee
of Euro 200 per ton plastics (2). This gatefee is a result of the applicition costs (450
Euro per ton plastics) reduced with the benefits of the substituted oil input (250
Euro per ton plastics).

A.3.5 Feedstock recovery: Texaco gasification process

As an alternative for feedstock recycling (FR) in the Blast Furnace separately col-
lected plastics are directed as feedstock to the Texaco Gasification process. Com-
parable with the visbreaking of vacuum residue from oil refining, the liquefaction
of packaging plastics mainly produces a synthetic heavy oil, together with smaller
amounts of condensable organics and non condensables. The liquefaction unit is
fired by natural gas and by the non-condensables of the liquefaction process itself.
Because of the composition of the produced gas, the syngas can be used as a feed-
stock in several petrochemical processes.

In this study it is assumed that the produced syngas from packaging plastics substi-
tutes the syngas from steamreforming of high calofiric natural gas for methanol
synthesis. The syngas from plastic packaging gasification has a H2: CO ratio of
1,while methanol synthesis requires an H2: CO ratio of 2. Consequently an addi-
tional suppletion of H2 is required in the case of plastics used as a feedstock. The
detailled description of the Texaco Gasification process is given in the CE report
(5).

Inputs and outputs:

Inputs and emissions per ton mixed packaging plastics gasification are summarised
in table A.3.5.1.

This table shows also an overview of environmental consequences of the additional

H2 suppletion and the consequences of substitution of syngas production out of
natural gas.
 TNO-report

46 of 127 TNO-MEP R 2000/119

Appendices

Costs:
In the study the gate fee of feedstock recycling in the case of the Texaco process is
assumed to be 200 Euro per ton. As can be derived from some remarks in the CE
report (5) the future costs are uncertain to some extent, because there is only ex-
perience with the running of a demonstration plant.

Table A.3.5.1 Inventory of the impacts of plastic gasification by the Texaco process.
(application and substitution; according (5)).

1 ton Additional H2 Total, Total

plastics suppletion plastics gasi- substituted syn-
gasification fication and gas out of natu-
H2 suppletion ral gas
Input
Electricity MJ 1.92E+03 3.14E+02 2.23E+03 4.35E+02
Natural gas MJ 2.70E+03 1.62E+04 1.89E+04 6.62E+04
Steam MJ 6.91E+03 6.91E+03
Emissions air
MEA kg 1.12E+00
Dust kg
CO2 kg 2.40E+02 8.57E+02 1.10E+03 7.41E+02
N2O kg 2.00E-03 2.00E-03
SO2 kg 5.40E-02 5.40E-02
NH3 kg 1.41E-06 1.41E-06
NOx kg 9.40E-02 9.40E-02 1.52E+00
CO2 kg 6.00E-02 6.00E-02 2.53E-01
CxHy kg 1.40E-02 1.73E-04 1.42E-02
CH4 kg 1.40E-01 1.40E-01 1.27E-01
PAH kg 7.60E-05
Ethene kg 2.53E-02
Benzene kg 1.27E-03
Toluene kg 1.27E-03
HCl kg 1.60E-02 1.60E-02
Residues kg 1.90E+00 1.26E-03 1.90E+00
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 47 of 127

Appendices

A.3.6 Mechanical recycling of mixed plastics

Mixed plastics recycling (MPR) for all scenarios and routes in this study is realised
by manufacturing a plastic palisade as a recycling product. According to the data in
the Fraunhofer study (4) there is a substantial electricity input needed for the ag-
glomeration process (including a shredder, a metal precipitation, a riddle sifter and
a conveyor) and for the extrusion process.

The study (4) also reports some ( minor) emissions and waste streams because of
mixed plastics recycling wich are dependent of contaminants and the needed water
content. In this study the emissions and waste streams by mixed plastics recycling
are negelected (because of differences of the defined FU) and conseqently the as-
sumption is applied that 1 kg mixed plastics will result in 1 kg plastic pallisade.
Calculations are based on the following characteristics:

Input energy:
Electricity: 2520 MJ/ton plastics (700 kWh/ton).

Concrete substitution:
The mixed plastics fence of 11 kg will substitute an equivalent concrete fence of 27
kg. Lifetime of the plastic fence is estimated four times the life time of the concrete
example. Because of the life time difference and the weight difference 1 kg plastic
fence will substitute 10 kg concrete fence.

End of life of the plastic fence:

The end of life processing of the plastics fence is assumed to be 50% landfill and
50% municipal solid waste incineration. Calculation of environmental impacts in-
cludes energy production in the MSWI as additional benefit of mixed plastics recy-
cling in the case of the plastic fence application. Energy production and the extrac-
tion of slags from MSWI are related to plastics composition data and the base case
MSWI allocation model as described in A.3.2.

Costs:
The costs of mixed plastics recycling are based on a gatefee of Euro 275 per ton
plastics (2). This gatefee is a result of the applicition costs (400 Euro per ton plas-
tics) reduced with the benefits of the substituted concrete (125 Euro per ton plas-
tics).
 TNO-report

48 of 127 TNO-MEP R 2000/119

Appendices

A.3.7 Mechanical recycling

Mechanical recycling (MR) which is assumed to occur in several routes in this

study will result in differences between recyclate origin (bottle, crate, etc) and re-
cyclate quality. As a consequence the following differences between mechanical
recycling options are accounted in this study:

Mechanical recycling of bottle fractions

This fraction of MSW packaging plastic is collected by the use of a bottle bank or a
yellow bag system. Recycling products are multi purpose bottles, surfactant bottles
etc.
In this study it is assumed that from 1 kg of bottle bank fraction 1 kg
secundary granulate will be produced substituting 400 g primary PET, 150 g
primary PVC and 450 g primary PE.
The electricity input is 2160 MJ per ton whereas the benefits are (negative gate
fee) 50 Euro per ton ton plastics as a result of application costs (450 Euro per
ton plastics) reduced with the benefits of the substituted primary plastics (500
Euro per ton plastics).
In this study it is assumed that from 1 kg of yellow bag bottle fraction 1 kg
secundary granulate will be produced substituting 150 g primary PVC, 450 g
primary PET and 400 g primary HDPE. The electricity input is assumed to be
2160 MJ per ton whereas this mechanical recycling is costs neutral as a re-
sult of application costs (500 Euro per ton plastics) reduced with the benefits of
the substituted primary plastics (500 Euro per ton plastics).

Mechanical recycling of film fraction

Plastic films are collected by IW collecting structure and by yellow bag system
(MSW). Recycling products are IW plastic films (commercial films) resp. mixed
plastics films.
In this study it is assumed that from 1 kg of IW film fraction 1 kg secundary
granulate will be produced substituting 1 kg primary LDPE. The electricity in-
put is 2860 MJ per ton whereas the benefits are 165 Euro per ton plastics
(negative gatefee) as a result of applicition costs (235 Euro per ton plastics) re-
duced with the benefits of the substituted primary plastics (400 Euro per ton
plastics).
In this study it is assumed that from 1 kg of yellow bag film fraction 1 kg
secundary granulate will be produced substituting 700 g primary LDPE granu-
late. The factor 0.7 is due to differences in film thickness and this factor corre-
sponds with the data in the Fraunhofer study (4). Electricity input is assumed to
be 2880 MJ per ton whereas costs of this mechanical recycling option are
based on a gate fee of 200 Euro per ton plastics as a result of applicition costs
(600 Euro per ton plastics) reduced with the benefits of the substituted primary
plastics (400 Euro per ton plastics).
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 49 of 127

Appendices

Mechanical recycling IW plastic monostreams

Plastic pallets and crates are separately collected as IW plastic mono streams. Re-
cycling products from these fractions are IW plastic pallets and crates.

In this study it is assumed that from 1 kg of IW plastic mono streams 1 kg secund-

ary granulate will be produced as a substitute for 1 kg primary HDPE. The electric-
ity input is 2860 MJ per ton whereas the benefit of 200 Euro per ton plastics (nega-
tive gate fee) is a result of applicition costs (200 Euro per ton plastics)reduced with
the benefits of the substituted primary plastics (400 Euro per ton plastics).
 TNO-report

50 of 127 TNO-MEP R 2000/119

Appendices

A.4 Recycling and recovery rates per route

The results of collection and separation, as described in appendix A2, are plastic
mass flows to final treatment (= application MR, MPR, FR, ER or landfill). Per
route two or more mass flows are directed to different application processes, as de-
scribed in the flow schemes.
Per route the total sum of recycling rates for MR, FR and MPR and energy recov-
ery rates (Ermswi and ERhigh ) can be calculted. As a consequence different MR, FR,
MPR and ER figures per route result as shown in tables A4.1 up to A4.3

Products of energy recovery and mechanical recycling will substitute primary fos-
sil fuels and primary products. In table 4.4.1 of the main report the substitution fac-
tors applied in this study are presented. In combination with the plastic mass flows
as described in appendix A2, the substituted primary amounts can be calculated.
Tables A4.1 up to table A4.3 give per separate route the amounts of substituted pri-
mary products.

NOTE
In this study different variants of routes are developed to construct the scenarios.
Per variant different application rates are defined (e.g. landfill or MSWI, MPR or
FR). Per variant the total amounts of substituted primary products etc. can differ as
demonstrated in tables A4.1, A4.2, A4.3.
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 51 of 127

Appendices

Table A4.1 Recycling and recovery rates per route and substituted products
(variants routes A1 up to A4)

Routes MSW
ROUTE A1 A1 A2 A2 A4 A4 A4- A4
L L NOW R50g R35g
Application characteristics (total 71.8 % of FU)
R 0.0% 0.0% 3.0% 3.0% 35.7% 3.0% 35.7% 35.6%
MR 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%
MPR 17.7% 16.3%
FR 32.7% 15.0% 16.3%
ER 71.8% 0.0% 68.8% 0.0% 35.8% 68.8% 35.9% 35.9%
ER high 34.6%
ER mswi 71.8% 68.8% 35.8% 34.2% 35.9% 35.9%
Landfill 71.8% 68.8%
Cut off 0.4% 0.4% 0.4%
Substituded products (kg per 0.718 kg MSW plastics)
LDPE (kg)
PP (kg)
PE/PVC/PET (kg) 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030
concrete (kg) 1.770 1.630
oil (kg) 0.317 0.146 0.158
coal (kg) 0.496
heat (MJ) 2.30 2.21 1.09 1.04 1.09 1.10
electricity (MJ) 4.59 4.43 2.19 2.08 2.19 2.19
 TNO-report

52 of 127 TNO-MEP R 2000/119

Appendices

Table A4.2 Recycling and recovery rates per route and substituted products
(variants routes A5)

Routes MSW
ROUTE A5 A5 A5 A5 A5 A5 A5
R25y R35y R50y R35y HE R50y HE R10m
Application characteristics (total 71.8 % of FU)
R 46.0% 46.0% 46.4% 46.2% 16.3% 31.3% 46.0%
MR 11.5% 10.8% 6.0% 3.6% 3.0% 3.0% 11.5%
MPR 10.4% 20.2% 24.4% 3.3% 13.3% 34.5%
FR 24.1% 35.2% 20.2% 18.2% 10.0% 15.0%
ER 25.5% 25.5% 25.2% 25.3% 55.2% 40.3% 25.5%
ER high 31.1% 16.2%
ER mswi 25.5% 25.5% 25.2% 25.3% 24.1% 24.1% 25.5%
Landfill
Cut off 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4%
Substituded products (kg per 0.718 kg MSW plastics)
LDPE (kg)
PP (kg)
PE/PVC/PET (kg) 0.115 0.108 0.060 0.036 0.030 0.030 0.115
Concrete (kg) 1.040 2.020 2.440 0.330 1.330 3.450
oil (kg) 0.233 0.341 0.196 0.176 0.097 0.146
Coal (kg) 0.446 0.232
Heat (MJ) 0.81 0.81 0.80 0.80 0.77 0.77 0.81
Electricity (MJ) 1.62 1.62 1.61 1.61 1.54 1.54 1.62
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 53 of 127

Appendices

Table A4.3 Recycling and recovery rates per route and substituted products
(routes B1 up to B3)

Routes IW
ROUTE B1 B1 B2 B2 B3
L L
Application characteristics (total 28.2 % of FU)
R 0.0% 0.0% 12.0% 12.0% 18.7%
MR 12.0% 12.0% 12.0%
MPR 6.7%
FR
ER 28.2% 0.0% 16.2% 0.0% 9.5%
ER high
ER mswi 28.2% 16.2% 9.5%
Landfill 28.2% 16.2%
Cut off 0.4% 0.4%
Substituded products (kg per 0.282 kg IW plastics)
LDPE (kg) 0.075 0.075 0.075
PP (kg) 0.045 0.045 0.045
PE/PVC/PET (kg)
concrete (kg) 0.667
oil (kg)
coal (kg)
heat (MJ) 1.04 0.60 0.35
electricity (MJ) 2.08 1.19 0.70
 TNO-report

54 of 127 TNO-MEP R 2000/119

Appendices

A.5 Background processes

BUWAL 250 data (18)

For all background processes such as transport, fuel and energy production the
process data from the BUWAL 250 report(18) are used in this study.

Detailled explanation:

A: Extrapolation of fuel data

In the BUWAL 250 report the so-called pre-combustion data for fuels and feed-
stocks (coal, natural gas and heavy oil) are not reported. TNO has re-calculated
these data using the heat conversion data in BUWAL 250 (18) in combination with
original emissions factors for heat conversion of the reference ETH2 (20) as men-
tioned in the BUWAL 250 report (18)
Heavy oil (FR, ER): calculated from combustion data in BUWAL 250 (18, ta-
ble 16.9), corrected with emission data of energy conversion in ETH2 (20, ta-
ble IV.11.21, table IV.11.23, table IV.11.24, table IV.11.25, table IV.11.26, ta-
ble IV.11.28, table IV.11.29, table IV.11.39)
Natural gas (FR, ER): calculated from combustion data in BUWAL 250 (18,
table 16.9), corrected with emission data of energy conversion in ETH2 (20,
table V.11.2).
Coal (ER): calculated from combustion data in BUWAL 250 (18, table 16.9),
corrected with emission data of energy conversion in ETH2 (20, table
VI.10.59)

Solid waste (mining waste) generated before combustion can not be recalculated in
this way. Because of the assumption mining waste is not characterised as final
waste the solid wastes of fuel pre-combustion are negelected in this study.

The calculated inputs and outputs (per kg coal, per kg oil, resp. per m3 gas) for the
fuel pre-combustion processes are reported in table A5.1.

NOTE: The fuel data in table A5.1 are not discussed further with the authors of
BUWAL 250. Some (minor) differences in resources depletion and metal emis-
sions will be possible.
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 55 of 127

Appendices

Table A5.1 Pre-combustion fuel process data used in this study .

Coal Gas Oil Coal Gas Oil

3
unit Kg m kg MJ MJ MJ

Raw material
crude oil ETH 42.6 kg 2.7E-02 7.3E-03 1.1E+00 9.2E-04 2.1E-04 2.8E-02
energy from hydro power kJ 1.5E+02 1.2E+02 2.4E+02 5.3E+00 3.5E+00 6.0E+00
3
gas nat (v) ETH 35 m 2.1E-02 1.1E+00 6.4E-02 7.2E-04 3.2E-02 1.6E-03
raw coal ETH 18 kg 1.7E+00 2.1E-02 4.1E-02 5.7E-02 6.1E-04 1.0E-03
raw lignite ETH 8 g 3.5E+01 2.8E+01 5.5E+01 1.2E+00 8.1E-01 1.4E+00
U from ore 451E3 mg 2.4E+00 1.9E+00 3.7E+00 8.2E-02 5.5E-02 9.3E-02
wood 16 g 1.6E+01 2.1E-01 4.0E-01 5.4E-01 6.0E-03 1.0E-02
Airborne emissions
CxHy aromatic mg 1.6E+00 9.7E-01 2.4E+01 5.5E-02 2.8E-02 6.0E-01
CxHy chloro ng 6.0E+01 5.0E+01 9.7E+01 2.0E+00 1.4E+00 2.4E+00
benzene mg 6.5E-01 3.4E-01 1.1E+01 2.2E-02 9.7E-03 2.7E-01
Cd g 3.3E+00 1.7E+00 6.0E+01 1.1E-01 4.9E-02 1.5E+00
CO mg 2.5E+02 6.0E+01 7.0E+02 8.5E+00 1.7E+00 1.8E+01
CO2 g 2.0E+02 2.9E+02 6.4E+02 6.7E+00 8.2E+00 1.6E+01
dust mg 6.6E+02 1.2E+02 4.8E+02 2.3E+01 3.4E+00 1.2E+01
HALON-1301 g 3.4E+00 1.7E+00 2.7E+02 1.2E-01 5.0E-02 6.8E+00
HCl mg 4.0E+01 1.4E+01 8.8E+01 1.4E+00 4.1E-01 2.2E+00
HF mg 2.8E+00 1.5E+00 8.9E+00 9.5E-02 4.3E-02 2.2E-01
Hg g 9.2E+00 7.3E+01 9.0E+00 3.1E-01 2.1E+00 2.3E-01
hydrocarbnm.undefined g 2.9E-01 3.8E-01 8.8E+00 9.9E-03 1.1E-02 2.2E-01
metals undefined mg 6.0E+01 4.3E+00 1.7E+02 2.0E+00 1.2E-01 4.3E+00
methane g 1.1E+01 6.4E+00 4.7E+00 3.9E-01 1.8E-01 1.2E-01
Mn g 6.0E+01 7.2E+00 1.0E+01 2.0E+00 2.1E-01 2.5E-01
N2 O mg 3.5E+01 6.5E+00 1.2E+01 1.2E+00 1.9E-01 3.1E-01
NH4 mg 1.6E+00 2.3E-01 4.4E-01 5.3E-02 6.6E-03 1.1E-02
Ni mg 1.8E-01 9.9E-02 2.4E+00 6.1E-03 2.8E-03 6.0E-02
NOx (as NO2) g 1.2E+00 1.6E+00 3.1E+00 4.1E-02 4.6E-02 7.8E-02
PAH g 1.0E+01 3.7E+02 2.8E+01 3.4E-01 1.1E+01 7.0E-01
Pb g 2.4E+02 1.7E+01 1.5E+02 8.2E+00 4.7E-01 3.8E+00
SOx (as SO2) g 1.9E+00 1.3E+00 4.1E+00 6.3E-02 3.6E-02 1.0E-01
Zn mg 1.9E-01 3.4E-02 1.1E+00 6.5E-03 9.8E-04 2.6E-02
Waterborne emissions
CxHy aromatic mg 1.2E+00 2.3E+00 4.8E+01 3.9E-02 6.6E-02 1.2E+00
CxHy chloro g 1.5E+00 1.7E+01 5.0E+01 5.2E-02 4.9E-01 1.2E+00
Al g 2.6E+00 3.5E-02 6.7E-02 9.0E-02 9.9E-04 1.7E-03
AOX g 4.8E+00 1.3E+00 2.0E+02 1.6E-01 3.7E-02 4.9E+00
As mg 5.3E+00 7.0E-02 1.8E-01 1.8E-01 2.0E-03 4.4E-03
Ba mg 2.2E+02 3.6E+00 1.5E+02 7.3E+00 1.0E-01 3.7E+00
BOD mg 7.9E-02 1.1E-01 2.5E+00 2.7E-03 3.2E-03 6.2E-02
Cd g 1.3E+02 2.3E+00 6.4E+01 4.6E+00 6.6E-02 1.6E+00
Cl G 1.4E+01 4.4E-01 3.1E+01 4.7E-01 1.2E-02 7.6E-01
 TNO-report

56 of 127 TNO-MEP R 2000/119

Appendices

Coal Gas Oil Coal Gas Oil

3
unit Kg m kg MJ MJ MJ

CN g 1.8E+01 2.7E+00 2.2E+02 6.3E-01 7.8E-02 5.5E+00

COD Mg 2.8E+00 1.5E+00 4.9E+01 9.4E-02 4.3E-02 1.2E+00
Cr Mg 2.7E+01 4.6E-01 1.1E+00 9.0E-01 1.3E-02 2.9E-02
Cu Mg 1.3E+01 1.7E-01 4.3E-01 4.5E-01 4.9E-03 1.1E-02
DOC Mg 8.3E-02 1.6E+01 1.2E-01 2.8E-03 4.7E-01 3.1E-03
Fe Mg 8.5E+02 5.6E+01 1.2E+02 2.9E+01 1.6E+00 2.9E+00
Hg g 8.9E-02 3.7E+00 6.4E-01 3.0E-03 1.0E-01 1.6E-02
Kjeld N Mg 2.1E-05 6.6E-02 5.6E+00 7.1E-07 1.9E-03 1.4E-01
metals undefined Mg 2.8E+02 5.9E+00 3.5E+02 9.5E+00 1.7E-01 8.8E+00
N-total Mg 1.7E+00 5.0E-01 5.6E+01 5.7E-02 1.4E-02 1.4E+00
NH4 Mg 4.2E+00 8.1E-01 5.8E+01 1.4E-01 2.3E-02 1.4E+00
Ni Mg 1.3E+01 1.7E-01 4.9E-01 4.5E-01 5.0E-03 1.2E-02
nitrate Mg 2.5E+00 1.1E+00 3.7E+01 8.4E-02 3.0E-02 9.4E-01
oil G 3.6E-02 5.3E-02 1.5E+00 1.2E-03 1.5E-03 3.8E-02
PAH g 1.8E+01 4.7E+00 7.4E+02 6.0E-01 1.4E-01 1.8E+01
Pb Mg 1.3E+01 2.0E-01 4.6E-01 4.5E-01 5.8E-03 1.1E-02
phenol Mg 2.1E-01 2.3E-01 8.1E+00 7.1E-03 6.6E-03 2.0E-01
phosphate Mg 1.6E+02 2.1E+00 4.5E+00 5.4E+00 5.9E-02 1.1E-01
solids anorg dissolved G 8.6E+00 7.5E-01 2.2E+01 2.9E-01 2.1E-02 5.5E-01
solids suspended G 1.2E-01 1.1E+00 3.2E+00 3.9E-03 3.2E-02 8.1E-02
sulphate G 1.2E+01 3.9E-01 1.5E+00 4.1E-01 1.1E-02 3.8E-02
sulphide Mg 4.5E-02 1.3E-02 1.7E+00 1.5E-03 3.6E-04 4.4E-02
TOC G 1.7E-02 1.1E+00 4.5E-01 5.7E-04 3.2E-02 1.1E-02
toluene Mg 1.1E-01 2.2E-01 6.7E+00 3.6E-03 6.4E-03 1.7E-01
Zn Mg 2.7E+01 3.5E-01 1.2E+00 9.1E-01 1.0E-02 2.9E-02
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 57 of 127

Appendices

B: Other energy data

Other energy data are directly derived from the BUWAL 250 report (18).
For transport the data of a truck of resp. 16 t (2.88 MJ/tonkm) or 40t
(1.17 MJ/tonkm) are from BUWAL 250 part II, table 16.10.
For heat production by a MSWI conventional heat production is substituted.
Conventional heat is assumed to be generated from combustion of a fuel mix-
ture of 30% oil, 30% natural gas and 40% coal. The corresponding data for
coal, oil and gas are from BUWAL 250 (18) part II, table 16.9, assuming the
heat generating efficicieny for conventional heat production is 90% .
For the electricity production by a MSWI the conventional electricity produc-
tion by an UCPTE mixture is substituted. Data for conventional electricity pro-
duction are derived from BUWAL 250 (18) part II, table 16.8.

C: Primary plastics data (17)

Regarding the needed data of the production of primary plastics the published data
of APME (17) are used.

Primary plastics information for accounting substion aspects of mechanical recy-

cling is based on the following datasources:
LDPE: APME ecoprofiles report 10 (17; LDPE revised, table 3)
PVC: APME ecoprofiles report 10 (17; PVC revised, table 3)
PET: APME ecoprofiles report 8 (17; PET bottle grade, table 1)
PP: APME ecoprofiles report 10 (17; PP revised, table 3)

Note:
Comparable data of primary plastics are also applied in the BUWAL 250 study
(18), but BUWAL 250 has adapted some data.
Consequently data of the background processes of primary plastics are not com-
plete identical with BUWAL 250.

D: Concrete data:

Related to the production of concrete Dutch Data of a dry state of the art cement
kiln are used, with the assumption that 1 kg concrete is an equivalent of 209 g port-
land cement, 659 g sand and 139 g water.

E: Summary:

The environmental impacts of all backgroundprocesses adapted in this study, are

summarised in tables A5.2 a (inventory items). Table A5.2b presents the calculated
environmental loads of background processes.
Table A5.2a Environmental impacts of background processes.
58 of 127
Raw materials kg kg kg kg kg kg MJ MJ MJ kg m3 kg kg MJ kg
Substance Unit bottleR filmR Act.Coke CaOH2 Na(OH)-50% NH3 MSWI heat MJshovel electricity coal nat.gas oil concrete transport MPWtex
clay minerals mg 8.5E+00 2.0E+01 x x X x x x x x x x 1.2E+04 x x
Ferromanganese g 4.5E+02 x x x X x x x x x x x x x x
Lubricant kg x x x 1.4E-05 X x x x x x x x x x x
lubricating oil kg x x x 1.4E-03 X x x x x x x x x x x
Marl kg x x 1.9E-04 x X x x x x x x x 3.4E-01 x x
Sand mg 1.6E+02 x x x 1.0E+01 x x x x x x x x x x
Zeolite kg x x 7.7E-08 x X x x x x x x x 3.5E-09 x x
ashes from steel prod. kg x x x x X x x x x x x x 1.9E-02 x x
furnace slag kg x x x x X x x x x x x x 2.3E-02 x x
Gypsum kg x x x x X x x x x x x x 1.1E-02 x x
pyrites ash kg x x x x X x x x x x x x 4.0E-03 x x
Slate kg x x x x X x x x x x x x 9.9E-03 x x
Fe (ore) mg 3.8E+02 2.0E+02 x x 2.3E+02 x x x x x x x x x x
Mn (ore) mg 2.3E+01 x x x X x x x x x x x x x x
Ag from ore kg x x 3.4E-09 x X x x x x x x x 1.6E-10 x x
barite from ore kg x x 7.0E-06 x X x x x x x x x 3.2E-07 x x
Co from ore kg x x 1.7E-13 x X x x x x x x x 7.7E-15 x x
Cr from ore kg x x 3.5E-07 x X x x x x x x x 1.6E-08 x x
crude oil 42 kg x x x x X x x x x x x x 7.1E-05 x x
crude oil ETH 42.6 kg x x 1.2E-03 6.9E-03 X x 1.3E-02 2.6E-02 8.7E-03 2.7E-02 7.3E-03 1.1E+00 5.3E-05 2.6E-02 2.5E-02
Cu from ore kg x x 6.8E-07 x X x x x x x x x 2.6E-08 x x
energy from coal MJ 4.0E+00 3.3E+00 x x 2.9E+00 x x x x x x x x x x
energy from hydro power kJ 5.9E+02 5.4E+02 2.7E+01 3.3E+01 3.6E+02 x 5.5E+00 1.2E+00 2.2E+02 1.5E+02 1.2E+02 2.4E+02 1.3E+00 1.2E+00 5.8E+02
energy from nat gas MJ 3.6E+01 4.6E+01 x x 2.4E+00 x x x x x x x x x x
energy from oil MJ 4.0E+01 3.7E+01 x x 1.8E+00 x x x x x x x x x x
energy from uranium MJ 2.2E+00 1.7E+00 x x 2.9E+00 x x x x x x x x x x
energy unspecified MJ 1.6E-01 2.2E-01 4.0E+00 x 3.6E-01 x x x x x x x 7.1E-01 x x
Fe from ore kg x x 5.8E-05 x X x x x x x x x 2.4E-06 x x
gas from oil (v) 40.9 m3 x x 5.6E-05 x X x x x x x x x 2.6E-06 x x
gas meth (w) 35.9 kg x x 3.3E-05 x X x x x x x x x 1.5E-06 x x
gas nat (feed)(v) 35 m3 x x x x X 2.9E-01 x x x x x x x x x
gas nat (v) 32 m3 x x 1.7E-01 x X x x x x x x x 2.4E-03 x x
gas nat (v) 37 m3 x x x x X 7.6E-02 x x x x x x x x x
gas nat (v) ETH 35 m3 x x 9.4E-04 1.2E-01 X x 1.1E-02 1.3E-03 5.9E-03 2.1E-02 1.1E+00 6.4E-02 4.3E-05 1.3E-03 8.8E-01
Mn from ore kg x x 6.3E-08 x X x x x x x x x 2.8E-09 x x
Mo from ore kg x x 6.5E-14 x X x x x x x x x 2.9E-15 x x
Ni from ore kg x x 2.4E-07 x X x x x x x x x 1.1E-08 x x
Pd from ore kg x x 3.4E-08 x X x x x x x x x 2.6E-10 x x
Pt from ore kg x x 7.0E-15 x X x x x x x x x 3.1E-16 x x
raw bauxite mg 2.9E+02 3.0E+02 8.6E+00 x X x x x x x x x 1.2E-01 x x
raw bentonite kg x x 7.4E-06 x X x x x x x x x 3.4E-07 x x
raw coal 29.3 mg 1.0E+02 x 1.3E+06 x X x x x x x x x 1.6E+03 x x
raw coal ETH 18 kg x x 4.7E-03 5.1E-03 X x 1.9E-02 2.0E-04 3.1E-02 1.7E+00 2.1E-02 4.1E-02 2.2E-04 2.0E-04 8.5E-02
TNO-MEP R 2000/119
TNO-report

Appendices
Raw materials kg kg kg kg kg kg MJ MJ MJ kg m3 kg kg MJ kg
Substance Unit bottleR filmR Act.Coke CaOH2 Na(OH)-50% NH3 MSWI heat MJshovel electricity coal nat.gas oil concrete transport MPWtex
raw lignite ETH 8 g x x 6.2E+00 6.0E+00 X x 1.3E+00 2.7E-01 3.3E+01 3.5E+01 2.8E+01 5.5E+01 2.8E-01 2.7E-01 9.4E+01
TNO-report

Appendices
raw limestone g 2.4E+00 1.5E-01 x 1.5E+03 5.3E+00 x x x x x x x x x x
raw phosfate mg 1.4E+01 x x x X x x x x x x x x x x
Rhenium kg x x 1.7E-15 x X x x x x x x x 7.0E-17 x x
Rhodium kg x x 2.5E-15 x X x x x x x x x 1.0E-16 x x
TNO-MEP R 2000/119

rock salt g 1.1E+02 8.0E+00 3.8E-03 x 3.0E+02 x x x x x x x 1.5E-04 x x

Sn from ore kg x x 1.9E-09 x X x x x x x x x 8.6E-11 x x
U from ore 1.1E3 kg x x x x X x x x x x x x 9.6E-06 x x
U from ore 451E3 mg x x 4.2E-01 5.0E-01 X x 8.5E-02 1.9E-02 3.3E+00 2.4E+00 1.9E+00 3.7E+00 1.9E-02 1.9E-02 8.8E+00
Water kg 2.1E+01 2.4E+01 8.9E-01 x 2.7E+00 x x x x x x x 4.1E-02 x x
water process m3 x x x x X 4.6E-04 x x x x x x x x x
wood 16 g x x 5.0E-02 5.0E-02 X x 1.9E-01 2.0E-03 3.0E-01 1.6E+01 2.1E-01 4.0E-01 2.3E-03 2.0E-03 8.4E-01
Zn from ore kg x x 2.4E-09 x X x x x x x x x 1.1E-10 x x
Airborne emissions
Substance Unit bottleR filmR Act.Coke CaOH2 Na(OH)-50% NH3 MSWI heat MJshovel electricity coal nat.gas oil concrete transport MPWtex
CxHy aromatic mg x x 8.1E+00 1.1E+00 X x 4.9E-01 5.0E-01 1.2E+00 1.6E+00 9.7E-01 2.4E+01 2.0E-05 5.0E-01 3.4E+00
CxHy chloro mg 7.7E+01 x x 1.3E-05 X x 2.2E-06 4.8E-07 8.6E-05 6.0E-05 5.0E-05 9.7E-05 x 4.8E-07 2.3E-04
dust coarse kg x x 3.0E-05 x X x x x x x x x 1.4E-06 x x
Ethyne kg x x 3.4E-10 x X x x x x x x x 1.5E-11 x x
Silicates kg x x 7.4E-07 x X x x x x x x x 3.4E-08 x x
Unspecified emission g 4.2E+00 1.0E-03 2.6E-01 x X x x x x x x x x x x
12 dichloroethane kg x x 1.0E-10 x X x x x x x x x 2.8E-12 x x
acetaldehyde kg x x 9.2E-09 x X x x x x x x x 4.2E-10 x x
aceticacid kg x x 4.2E-08 x X x x x x x x x 1.9E-09 x x
acetone kg x x 9.1E-09 x X x x x x x x x 4.2E-10 x x
acroleine kg x x 2.1E-12 x X x x x x x x x 7.5E-14 x x
Al kg x x 2.9E-07 x X x x x x x x x 1.3E-08 x x
aldehydes kg x x 1.3E-05 x X x x x x x x x 1.8E-08 x x
alkanes kg x x 8.5E-08 x X x x x x x x x 3.9E-09 x x
alkenes kg x x 2.9E-08 x X x x x x x x x 1.3E-09 x x
antracene kg x x x x X x x x x x x x x x 0.0E+00
As kg x x 9.9E-10 x X x x x x x x x 4.5E-11 x x
B kg x x 2.2E-07 x X x x x x x x x 1.0E-08 x x
Ba kg x x 4.0E-09 x X x x x x x x x 1.8E-10 x x
Be kg x x 4.0E-11 x X x x x x x x x 1.8E-12 x x
benzaldehyde kg x x 7.1E-13 x X x x x x x x x 2.6E-14 x x
benzene mg x x 3.5E+00 2.2E+00 X x 4.4E-01 3.0E+00 1.7E-01 6.5E-01 3.4E-01 1.1E+01 1.2E-03 3.0E+00 6.4E-01
benzo-a-antracene kg x x x x X x x x x x x x x x 0.0E+00
benzo-a-pyrene g x x 6.0E+01 x X x x x x x x x 3.7E-04 x 0.0E+00
benzo-k-fluoranthene kg x x x x X x x x x x x x x x 0.0E+00
Br kg x x 1.4E-08 x X x x x x x x x 6.6E-10 x x
butane kg x x 1.2E-07 x X x x x x x x x 5.6E-09 x x
butene kg x x 2.0E-09 x X x x x x x x x 9.0E-11 x x
Ca kg x x 1.9E-07 x X x x x x x x x 8.5E-09 x x
carbonblack kg x x 3.2E-04 x X x x x x x x x x x x
59 of 127
Raw materials kg kg kg kg kg kg MJ MJ MJ kg m3 kg kg MJ kg
Substance Unit bottleR filmR Act.Coke CaOH2 Na(OH)-50% NH3 MSWI heat MJshovel electricity coal nat.gas oil concrete transport MPWtex 60 of 127
Cd g x x 3.7E-01 5.7E-01 X x 1.6E+01 8.2E-01 2.5E+00 3.3E+00 1.7E+00 6.0E+01 1.7E-02 8.2E-01 6.9E+00
CFC-116 kg x x 3.6E-10 x X x x x x x x x 4.9E-12 x x
CFC-14 kg x x 2.9E-09 x X x x x x x x x 4.0E-11 x x
chrysene kg x x x x X x x x x x x x x x 0.0E+00
Cl2 g 1.5E+02 x x x X x x x x x x x x x x
CN kg x x 1.1E-11 x X x x x x x x x 5.0E-13 x x
CO g 8.8E+00 9.0E-01 9.7E-01 2.0E-01 3.5E-01 1.3E-02 5.8E-02 4.6E-01 2.2E-02 2.5E-01 6.0E-02 7.0E-01 1.1E-01 4.6E-01 1.6E-01
CO2 kg 2.3E+00 2.4E+00 8.8E-01 8.8E-01 5.6E-01 2.2E-01 9.4E-02 8.4E-02 1.2E-01 2.0E-01 2.9E-01 6.4E-01 1.9E-01 8.4E-02 1.6E+00
cobalt kg x x 2.2E-09 x X x x x x x x x 1.0E-10 x x
Cr kg x x 2.1E-09 x X x x x x x x x 9.8E-11 x x
Cu kg x x 5.3E-09 x X x x x x x x x 2.4E-10 x x
dioxin (TEQ) kg x x 6.3E-16 x X x x x x x x x 2.9E-17 x x
dust g x x x 1.2E+01 X x 5.2E-02 3.5E-02 1.4E-01 6.6E-01 1.2E-01 4.8E-01 x 3.5E-02 4.1E-01
dust fine g 3.5E+00 3.0E+00 1.6E-01 x 1.6E+00 x x x x x x x 5.1E-02 x x
ethane kg x x 1.9E-07 x X x x x x x x x 8.9E-09 x x
ethanol kg x x 1.8E-08 x X x x x x x x x 8.4E-10 x x
ethene g x x 1.1E+01 x X x x x x x x x 4.9E-01 x 0.0E+00
ethylbenzene kg x x 2.9E-08 x X x x x x x x x 1.3E-09 x x
F2 kg x x 1.9E-06 x X x x x x x x x x x x
Fe kg x x 1.6E-07 x X x x x x x x x 7.2E-09 x x
fenantrene kg x x x x X x x x x x x x x x 0.0E+00
fluoranthene kg x x 6.0E-07 x X x x x x x x x x x 0.0E+00
formaldehyde kg x x 7.1E-08 x X x x x x x x x 3.2E-09 x x
H2S kg x x 2.7E-04 x X x x x x x x x 9.8E-10 x x
HALON-1301 g x x 2.7E-01 1.7E+00 X x 3.0E+00 6.1E+00 2.1E+00 3.4E+00 1.7E+00 2.7E+02 1.3E-02 6.1E+00 6.0E+00
HCl mg 1.1E+02 7.0E+01 3.1E+00 3.3E+00 7.5E+01 x 1.8E+01 1.7E-01 2.0E+01 4.0E+01 1.4E+01 8.8E+01 1.4E-01 1.7E-01 7.1E+01
heptane kg x x 2.0E-08 x X x x x x x x x 9.0E-10 x x
hexane-n kg x x 4.1E-08 x X x x x x x x x 1.9E-09 x x
HF mg 2.0E+00 5.0E+00 3.3E-01 3.5E-01 X x 7.3E-01 1.8E-02 2.1E+00 2.8E+00 1.5E+00 8.9E+00 1.5E-02 1.8E-02 5.8E+00
Hg g x x 5.1E-01 8.0E+00 X x 1.9E+00 8.4E-02 3.4E+00 9.2E+00 7.3E+01 9.0E+00 2.3E-02 8.4E-02 6.4E+01
hydrocarb.undefined g 2.9E+01 2.1E+01 4.5E+00 x 3.3E+00 x x x x x x x 5.6E-02 x 1.4E-02
hydrocarbnm.undefined g x x 9.1E-03 1.7E-01 X 4.6E-01 1.1E-01 5.3E-01 7.4E-02 2.9E-01 3.8E-01 8.8E+00 4.1E-04 5.3E-01 4.6E-01
I kg x x 6.9E-09 x X x x x x x x x 3.2E-10 x x
K kg x x 3.6E-08 x X x x x x x x x 1.6E-09 x x
La kg x x 1.1E-10 x X x x x x x x x 5.3E-12 x x
metals heavy undef mg 7.0E+00 5.0E+00 x x 1.0E+00 x x x x x x x x x x
metals undefined mg x x x 1.1E+00 X x 9.1E+00 2.7E-01 6.0E+00 6.0E+01 4.3E+00 1.7E+02 x 2.7E-01 1.7E+01
methane g x x 3.0E+01 7.3E-01 X 3.57 2.4E-01 1.0E-01 2.8E-01 1.1E+01 6.4E+00 4.7E+00 3.7E-02 1.0E-01 5.7E+00
methanol kg x x 1.8E-08 x X x x x x x x x 8.4E-10 x x
Mg kg x x 1.0E-07 x X x x x x x x x 4.8E-09 x x
Mn g x x 1.9E+00 1.8E+00 X x 7.1E+00 6.9E-02 1.1E+01 6.0E+01 7.2E+00 1.0E+01 8.7E-02 6.9E-02 3.0E+01
Mo kg x x 6.5E-10 x X x x x x x x x 3.0E-11 x x
N2O mg x x 5.4E+02 3.2E+00 X x 1.5E+00 2.0E+00 1.2E+00 3.5E+01 6.5E+00 1.2E+01 1.4E+00 2.0E+00 7.6E+00
Na kg x x 4.9E-08 x X x x x x x x x 2.3E-09 x x
naftalene kg x x x x X x x x x x x x x x 0.0E+00
TNO-MEP R 2000/119
TNO-report

Appendices
Raw materials kg kg kg kg kg kg MJ MJ MJ kg m3 kg kg MJ kg
Substance Unit bottleR filmR Act.Coke CaOH2 Na(OH)-50% NH3 MSWI heat MJshovel electricity coal nat.gas oil concrete transport MPWtex
NH4 mg x x 8.1E+00 5.5E-02 X x 2.5E-02 2.3E-03 3.4E-01 1.6E+00 2.3E-01 4.4E-01 4.3E-02 2.3E-03 9.3E-01
TNO-report

Appendices
Ni mg x x 2.1E-02 3.4E-02 X x 3.3E-01 4.1E-02 1.7E-01 1.8E-01 9.9E-02 2.4E+00 9.5E-04 4.1E-02 4.5E-01
NO2 kg x x x x X x x x x x x x x x 2.0E-06
NOx (as NO2) g 1.6E+01 1.2E+01 1.3E+00 5.9E-01 3.6E+00 1.5E-01 2.1E-01 1.5E+00 2.6E-01 1.2E+00 1.6E+00 3.1E+00 6.5E-01 1.5E+00 1.8E+00
NOx excl N2O kg x x x x X x x x x x x x x x 9.4E-05
TNO-MEP R 2000/119

P kg x x 3.4E-09 x X x x x x x x x 1.6E-10 x x
PAH g x x 5.8E-01 4.0E+01 X x 4.0E+00 6.4E-01 3.6E+00 1.0E+01 3.7E+02 2.8E+01 2.7E-02 6.4E-01 2.9E+02
Pb g x x 3.9E+00 5.0E+00 X x 5.4E+01 4.5E+00 2.6E+01 2.4E+02 1.7E+01 1.5E+02 1.7E-01 4.5E+00 7.0E+01
pentane kg x x 1.6E-07 x X x x x x x x x 7.5E-09 x x
phenol kg x x 2.7E-11 x X x x x x x x x 1.2E-12 x x
propane kg x x 1.4E-07 x X x x x x x x x 6.5E-09 x x
propene kg x x 6.4E-09 x X x x x x x x x 2.9E-10 x x
propionicacid kg x x 7.1E-10 x X x x x x x x x 3.2E-11 x x
Pt kg x x 4.1E-16 x X x x x x x x x 1.9E-17 x x
Sb kg x x 1.6E-10 x X x x x x x x x 7.2E-12 x x
Sc kg x x 4.3E-11 x X x x x x x x x 2.0E-12 x x
Se kg x x 2.6E-09 x X x x x x x x x 1.2E-10 x x
Sn kg x x 9.9E-11 x X x x x x x x x 4.6E-12 x x
SO2 g x x 2.2E+00 x X x x x x x x x 3.6E-02 x 5.4E-02
SOx (as SO2) g 1.7E+01 9.0E+00 x 2.2E-01 5.0E+00 5.0E-03 7.7E-01 1.3E-01 6.3E-01 1.9E+00 1.3E+00 4.1E+00 2.1E-01 1.3E-01 2.4E+00
Sr kg x x 4.7E-09 x X x x x x x x x 2.2E-10 x x
Th kg x x 2.6E-10 x X x x x x x x x 1.2E-11 x x
Ti kg x x 1.3E-08 x X x x x x x x x 5.9E-10 x x
Tl kg x x 1.1E-11 x X x x x x x x x 4.9E-13 x x
toluene mg x x 2.6E+00 x X x x x x x x x 1.5E-03 x 0.0E+00
U kg x x 1.2E-10 x X x x x x x x x 5.3E-12 x x
V kg x x 7.7E-08 x X x x x x x x x 3.5E-09 x x
vinylchloride kg x x 5.8E-11 x X x x x x x x x 1.6E-12 x x
xylene kg x x 2.9E-06 x X x x x x x x x 5.6E-09 x x
Zn mg x x 6.5E-03 1.3E-02 X x 5.1E-02 2.7E-02 3.7E-02 1.9E-01 3.4E-02 1.1E+00 2.9E-04 2.7E-02 1.1E-01
Zr kg x x 6.4E-12 x X x x x x x x x 2.9E-13 x x
Waterborne emissions
Substance Unit bottleR filmR Act.Coke CaOH2 Na(OH)-50% NH3 MSWI heat MJshovel electricity coal nat.gas oil concrete transport MPWtex
calcium compounds kg x x 8.4E-06 x X x x x x x x x 3.9E-07 x x
CxHy mg 2.2E+02 1.0E+02 6.4E+00 x X x x x x x x x 6.4E-02 x x
CxHy aromatic mg x x 3.6E-02 5.1E-01 X x 5.6E-01 1.1E+00 3.8E-01 1.2E+00 2.3E+00 4.8E+01 1.6E-03 1.1E+00 2.6E+00
CxHy chloro g 4.5E+02 x 4.0E-02 2.1E+00 X x 7.2E-01 1.1E+00 4.6E-01 1.5E+00 1.7E+01 5.0E+01 1.2E-03 1.1E+00 1.4E+01
dichloroethane kg x x 5.1E-11 x X x x x x x x x 1.4E-12 x x
methylenechloride kg x x 6.6E-11 x X x x x x x x x 3.0E-12 x x
organics dissolved g 6.1E+00 2.0E-02 1.4E-05 x X x x x x x x x 6.3E-07 x x
P2O5 mg 4.5E+00 x x x X x x x x x x x x x x
tributyltin kg x x 2.4E-10 x X x x x x x x x 1.1E-11 x x
unspecified emission mg 4.0E+00 1.0E+01 x x X x x x x x x x x x x
acid (as H+) mg 1.3E+02 6.0E+01 1.6E-03 x 1.4E+02 x x x x x x x 7.2E-05 x x
Ag kg x x 3.6E-11 x X x x x x x x x 1.7E-12 x x
61 of 127
Raw materials kg kg kg kg kg kg MJ MJ MJ kg m3 kg kg MJ kg
Substance Unit bottleR filmR Act.Coke CaOH2 Na(OH)-50% NH3 MSWI heat MJshovel electricity coal nat.gas oil concrete transport MPWtex 62 of 127
Al g x x 7.6E-03 8.2E-03 X x 3.1E-02 3.4E-04 5.0E-02 2.6E+00 3.5E-02 6.7E-02 3.5E-04 3.4E-04 1.4E-01
alkanes kg x x 7.6E-09 x X x x x x x x x 3.5E-10 x x
alkenes kg x x 6.9E-10 x X x x x x x x x 3.2E-11 x x
AOX g x x 2.0E-01 1.3E+00 X x 2.2E+00 5.0E+00 1.5E+00 4.8E+00 1.3E+00 2.0E+02 9.1E-03 5.0E+00 4.4E+00
As mg x x 1.5E-02 1.7E-02 X x 6.2E-02 1.7E-03 1.0E-01 5.3E+00 7.0E-02 1.8E-01 7.0E-04 1.7E-03 2.8E-01
B kg x x 1.3E-08 x X x x x x x x x 5.9E-10 x x
Ba mg x x 7.4E-01 1.5E+00 X x 4.1E+00 3.2E+00 5.0E+00 2.2E+02 3.6E+00 1.5E+02 3.4E-02 3.2E+00 1.4E+01
barite kg x x 1.4E-06 x X x x x x x x x 6.2E-08 x x
Be kg x x 5.3E-12 x X x x x x x x x 2.4E-13 x x
benzene kg x x 7.7E-09 x X x x x x x x x 3.5E-10 x x
BOD mg 5.4E+02 2.0E+02 5.3E-03 3.8E-02 1.5E+00 x 2.9E-02 1.2E-01 2.8E-02 7.9E-02 1.1E-01 2.5E+00 6.2E-04 1.2E-01 1.5E-01
Cd g x x 4.8E-01 8.3E-01 X x 2.2E+00 1.4E+00 3.3E+00 1.3E+02 2.3E+00 6.4E+01 2.2E-02 1.4E+00 9.1E+00
chlorobenzene kg x x 4.2E-17 x X x x x x x x x 2.1E-18 x x
Cl g 6.7E+00 1.3E-01 7.9E-02 2.4E-01 1.5E+01 x 5.0E-01 6.8E-01 5.6E-01 1.4E+01 4.4E-01 3.1E+01 3.6E-03 6.8E-01 1.6E+00
CN g x x 8.1E-01 1.6E+00 X x 2.6E+00 5.1E+00 3.3E+00 1.8E+01 2.7E+00 2.2E+02 3.6E-02 5.1E+00 9.5E+00
cobalt kg x x 1.5E-08 x X x x x x x x x 6.9E-10 x x
COD g 2.3E+00 1.5E+00 8.0E-05 1.0E-03 6.5E-03 x 5.8E-04 3.8E-03 5.6E-04 2.8E-03 1.5E-03 4.9E-02 5.0E-06 3.8E-03 2.4E-03
Cr mg x x 7.6E-02 9.6E-02 X x 3.2E-01 1.4E-02 5.0E-01 2.7E+01 4.6E-01 1.1E+00 3.5E-03 1.4E-02 1.5E+00
CrVI kg x x 2.0E-11 x X x x x x x x x 9.0E-13 x x
Cs kg x x 5.7E-11 x X x x x x x x x 2.6E-12 x x
Cu mg x x 6.8E-02 4.1E-02 X x 1.6E-01 4.0E-03 2.5E-01 1.3E+01 1.7E-01 4.3E-01 1.7E-03 4.0E-03 6.9E-01
DOC mg x x x 1.8E+00 X x 1.5E-01 6.1E-04 7.7E-02 8.3E-02 1.6E+01 1.2E-01 x 6.1E-04 1.3E+01
ethylbenzene kg x x 1.4E-09 x X x x x x x x x 6.3E-11 x x
F kg x x 2.3E-08 x X x x x x x x x 1.0E-09 x x
F2 kg x x x x X x x x x x x x 3.5E-09 x x
Fe mg x x 1.2E+01 1.2E+01 X x 1.1E+01 7.2E-01 6.7E+01 8.5E+02 5.6E+01 1.2E+02 5.6E-01 7.2E-01 1.9E+02
formaldehyde kg x x 4.5E-13 x X x x x x x x x 2.0E-14 x x
glutaraldehyde kg x x 1.7E-10 x X x x x x x x x 7.7E-12 x x
H2S kg x x 3.2E-10 x X x x x x x x x 1.4E-11 x x
Hg g x x 6.0E+00 4.0E-01 X x 4.1E-02 1.3E-02 9.0E-02 8.9E-02 3.7E+00 6.4E-01 6.3E-04 1.3E-02 3.0E+00
HOCL kg x x 6.9E-08 x X x x x x x x x 3.2E-09 x x
I kg x x 5.8E-09 x X x x x x x x x 2.6E-10 x x
K kg x x 2.5E-06 x X x x x x x x x 1.2E-07 x x
Kjeld N mg x x x 1.1E-01 X x 6.2E-02 4.8E-01 4.4E-02 2.1E-05 6.6E-02 5.6E+00 x 4.8E-01 1.5E-01
metals undefined mg 1.8E+02 2.5E+02 x 3.0E+00 3.5E+01 x 7.1E+00 7.9E+00 8.0E+00 2.8E+02 5.9E+00 3.5E+02 x 7.9E+00 2.2E+01
Mg kg x x 6.4E-06 x X x x x x x x x 3.0E-07 x x
Mn kg x x 1.8E-07 x X x x x x x x x 8.3E-09 x x
Mo kg x x 2.5E-08 x X x x x x x x x 1.1E-09 x x
N-total mg 9.0E-01 x 1.2E+00 6.6E-01 X x 6.4E-01 2.7E+00 4.4E-01 1.7E+00 5.0E-01 5.6E+01 7.6E-03 2.7E+00 1.4E+00
Na g 1.4E+00 x 2.6E-02 x 2.1E+00 x x x x x x x 1.2E-03 x x
NH3 kg x x x x X x x x x x x x 1.6E-09 x x
NH4 mg 2.0E+00 5.0E+00 x 7.6E-01 X x 6.9E-01 2.8E+00 9.7E-01 4.2E+00 8.1E-01 5.8E+01 x 2.8E+00 2.8E+00
Ni mg x x 3.8E-02 4.1E-02 X x 1.6E-01 5.3E-03 2.4E-01 1.3E+01 1.7E-01 4.9E-01 1.8E-03 5.3E-03 6.7E-01
nitrate mg 2.0E+00 5.0E+00 2.1E-01 4.2E-01 X x 4.5E-01 8.4E-01 1.5E+00 2.5E+00 1.1E+00 3.7E+01 1.1E-02 8.4E-01 4.1E+00
oil g x x x 1.4E-02 X x 1.7E-02 3.4E-02 1.2E-02 3.6E-02 5.3E-02 1.5E+00 x 3.4E-02 6.7E-02
TNO-MEP R 2000/119
TNO-report

Appendices
Raw materials kg kg kg kg kg kg MJ MJ MJ kg m3 kg kg MJ kg
Substance Unit bottleR filmR Act.Coke CaOH2 Na(OH)-50% NH3 MSWI heat MJshovel electricity coal nat.gas oil concrete transport MPWtex
oil crude mg 9.7E+01 2.0E+02 5.0E+00 x X x x x x x x x 8.4E-02 x x
TNO-report

Appendices
P-total kg x x 1.4E-11 x X x x x x x x x 6.4E-13 x x
PAH g x x 1.1E+01 4.5E+00 X x 8.4E+00 1.7E+01 5.7E+00 1.8E+01 4.7E+00 7.4E+02 3.4E-02 1.7E+01 1.6E+01
Pb mg x x 1.5E-01 4.9E-02 X x 1.6E-01 3.5E-03 3.0E-01 1.3E+01 2.0E-01 4.6E-01 2.1E-03 3.5E-03 8.4E-01
phenol mg x x 8.9E-03 6.6E-02 X x 9.4E-02 1.7E-01 6.4E-02 2.1E-01 2.3E-01 8.1E+00 4.0E-04 1.7E-01 3.2E-01
TNO-MEP R 2000/119

phosphate mg 2.0E+00 5.0E+00 4.5E-01 4.9E-01 X x 1.9E+00 3.3E-02 3.0E+00 1.6E+02 2.1E+00 4.5E+00 2.1E-02 3.3E-02 8.2E+00
S kg x x 1.8E-09 x X x x x x x x x 8.1E-11 x x
salts kg x x 2.2E-05 x X x x x x x x x 9.9E-07 x x
Sb kg x x 1.2E-10 x X x x x x x x x 5.6E-12 x x
Se kg x x 3.8E-08 x X x x x x x x x 1.8E-09 x x
Si kg x x 3.2E-11 x X x x x x x x x 1.5E-12 x x
Sn kg x x 1.0E-10 x X x x x x x x x 4.8E-12 x x
solids anorg dissolved g x x x 2.2E-01 X x 3.5E-01 4.9E-01 4.6E-01 8.6E+00 7.5E-01 2.2E+01 x 4.9E-01 1.6E+00
solids dissolved mg 4.4E+02 3.0E+02 2.4E+01 x 2.5E+01 x x x x x x x 1.4E+00 x x
solids suspended g 7.7E-01 5.0E-01 5.4E-03 1.4E-01 6.0E-01 x 4.7E-02 7.3E-02 3.9E-02 1.2E-01 1.1E+00 3.2E+00 2.5E-04 7.3E-02 9.6E-01
Sr kg x x 4.4E-07 x X x x x x x x x 2.0E-08 x x
sulphate g 2.4E-01 x 8.4E-02 9.7E-02 2.0E+00 x 1.6E-01 2.4E-02 5.7E-01 1.2E+01 3.9E-01 1.5E+00 3.9E-03 2.4E-02 1.6E+00
sulphide mg x x x 1.1E-02 X x 2.0E-02 4.0E-02 1.5E-02 4.5E-02 1.3E-02 1.7E+00 x 4.0E-02 4.3E-02
sulphite kg x x 3.4E-09 x X x x x x x x x 1.6E-10 x x
Ti kg x x 4.5E-07 x X x x x x x x x 2.1E-08 x x
TOC g x x 1.4E-03 1.2E-01 X x 1.5E-02 1.2E-02 8.7E-03 1.7E-02 1.1E+00 4.5E-01 6.3E-05 1.2E-02 8.8E-01
toluene mg x x 6.9E-03 6.0E-02 X x 7.7E-02 1.5E-01 5.2E-02 1.1E-01 2.2E-01 6.7E+00 3.2E-04 1.5E-01 2.9E-01
trichloroethene kg x x 8.7E-12 x X x x x x x x x 2.4E-13 x x
V kg x x 4.1E-08 x X x x x x x x x 1.9E-09 x x
W kg x x 8.1E-11 x X x x x x x x x 3.8E-12 x x
xylene kg x x 5.5E-09 x X x x x x x x x 2.5E-10 x x
Zn mg x x 1.5E-01 8.5E-02 X x 3.2E-01 1.5E-02 5.1E-01 2.7E+01 3.5E-01 1.2E+00 3.5E-03 1.5E-02 1.4E+00
Solid emissions
Substance Unit bottleR filmR Act.Coke CaOH2 Na(OH)-50% NH3 MSWI heat MJshovel electricity coal nat.gas oil concrete transport MPWtex
chemical waste kg x x x x 1.0E-05 x x x x x x x x x x
chemical waste (inert) g 2.8E+00 8.0E-01 x x X x x x x x x x x x x
final waste (inert) kg x x 2.0E-03 x X x x x x x x x 9.1E-05 x x
high active nuclear waste m3 x x 7.1E-11 x X x x x x x x x 6.6E-11 x x
industrial waste g 3.3E+00 3.5E+00 x x X x x x x x x x x x x
low&med. act. nucl. waste m3 x x 4.2E-09 x X x x x x x x x 2.3E-10 x x
mineral waste g 3.3E+01 2.6E+01 x x X x x x x x x x x x x
process waste (not inert) kg x x 7.8E-01 x 3.7E-02 x x x x x x x 9.3E-04 x x
slag g 4.3E+00 x x x X x x x x x x x x x x
slags/ash g 5.4E+00 9.0E+00 x x X x x x x x x x x x x
Unspecified kg x x x x X x x x 0.0E+00 x x x x x 0.0E+00
chemical waste (regulated) mg 6.2E+02 1.0E+02 x x X x x x x x x x x x x
waste limestone kg x x x 1.5E-01 X x x x x x x x x x x
Undefined kg x x x x X x x x x x x x x x 1.7E-02
63 of 127
Table A5.2b Calculated environmental loads of background processes.
64 of 127

Class Unit kg kg Kg kg kg Kg MJ MJ MJ kg m3 kg Kg MJ kg

Bottle Film Act.Cok CaOH2 Na(OH) NH3 MSWI MJshove Electricit Coal Nat.gas Oil Concret Transport MPWte
Recycle Recycle e -50% Heat l y e x
EDP y-1 E15 2.8E-01 2.9E-01 3.7E-02 1.7E-02 6.0E-02 3.9E-02 4.1E-03 4.7E-03 2.7E-02 3.3E-02 1.3E-01 2.3E-01 1.3E-03 4.7E-03 1.6E-01
ADP y-1 E15 1.0E-05 8.9E-06 2.6E-03 0.0E+0 0.0E+0 0.0E+00 0.0E+0 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+0 0.0E+0 0.0E+0 3.1E-05 0.0E+00 0.0E+0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ener GJ 8.3E-02 8.9E-02 4.9E-02 4.9E-03 1.1E-02 1.3E-02 1.3E-03 1.2E-03 3.1E-03 3.4E-02 4.1E-02 5.4E-02 8.7E-04 1.2E-03 3.9E-02
GWP kg CO2 2.4E+0 2.5E+0 1.4E+00 8.9E-01 5.8E-01 2.6E-01 9.8E-02 9.4E-02 1.2E-01 3.4E-01 3.7E-01 7.2E-01 2.0E-01 9.4E-02 1.7E+0
0 0 0
ODP kg CFC11 0.0E+0 0.0E+0 4.4E-09 2.6E-08 0.0E+0 0.0E+0 4.8E-08 9.8E-08 3.3E-08 5.5E-08 2.8E-08 4.3E-06 2.0E-10 9.8E-08 9.5E-08
0 0 0 0
POCP kg C2H4 1.2E-02 8.7E-03 2.1E-03 7.9E-05 1.4E-03 2.2E-04 4.8E-05 2.2E-04 3.4E-05 2.0E-04 2.0E-04 3.7E-03 2.4E-05 2.2E-04 2.4E-04
AP kg SO2 2.8E-02 1.8E-02 3.7E-03 6.4E-04 7.6E-03 1.1E-04 9.3E-04 1.2E-03 8.3E-04 2.8E-03 2.4E-03 6.4E-03 7.0E-04 1.2E-03 3.9E-03
NP kg P 2.2E-03 1.6E-03 2.4E-04 7.8E-05 4.7E-04 2.0E-05 3.0E-05 2.0E-04 3.9E-05 4.0E-04 2.1E-04 4.6E-04 8.5E-05 2.0E-04 2.6E-04
FW kg FW 2.7E-02 2.6E-02 3.9E-01 0.0E+0 1.9E-02 0.0E+0 0.0E+0 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+0 0.0E+0 0.0E+0 5.6E-04 0.0E+00 1.7E-02
0 0 0 0 0 0
TW kg TW 3.5E-03 9.0E-04 4.3E-06 0.0E+0 1.0E-05 0.0E+0 0.0E+0 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+0 0.0E+0 0.0E+0 2.9E-07 0.0E+00 0.0E+0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
AETP Kg 14 0.0E+0 0.0E+0 4.3E+00 5.2E-01 0.0E+0 0.0E+0 3.0E+0 2.5E-01 2.9E+00 1.1E+0 2.1E+0 1.6E+0 1.9E-01 2.5E-01 7.9E+0
dicb 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0
HTP kg 14 dicb 3.4E-03 2.9E-03 1.5E-02 3.3E-02 1.6E-03 0.0E+0 2.3E-02 1.2E-02 1.4E-02 1.8E-01 2.4E-01 3.3E-01 3.1E-04 1.2E-02 2.2E-01
0
TNO-MEP R 2000/119
TNO-report

Appendices
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 65 of 127

Appendices

Explanation of names in tables A5.2a and A5.2b:

Name Unit Process description Substituted by In/output

A5.2
BottleRecycle kg primary plastics (40% PE, 15% PVC and 45% PET) plastics bottles
FilmRecycle kg primary LDPE plastic film
Act.Coke kg active coke flue gas cleaning MSWI
CaOH2 kg lime for fue gas cleaning MSWI
Na(OH)-50% kg caustic for flue gas cleaning MSWI
NH3 kg amonia for flue gas cleaning MSWI
MSWIHeat MJ heat UCPTE (30% gas, 30% coal, 40% heav,oil) 1) MSWI
MJshovel MJ MJ input (diesel) in shovel landfill
Electricity MJ electricity UCPTE model 2) general
Coal kg coal (29.3 MJ/kg) input cement process electricity
Nat.gas m3 natural gas (35 MJ/m 3) electricity
Oil kg heavy fuel oil (40 MJ/kg) feedstock (blast furnace)
Concrete kg concrete production mixed plastics
Transport MJ general
MPWtex kg feedstock (gasification)
1)
assumed primary heat production UCPTE
2)
average UCPTE electricity production according (18)
 TNO-report

66 of 127 TNO-MEP R 2000/119

Appendices

A.6 Supplement mass balances

Energy recovery by a combination of MSWI and cement kiln

During the execution of the project some alternatives for the scenarios R35 and
R50 were defined. Considering these alternatives about 50% of the energy recovery
has to be realised by a cement kiln instead of the MSWI.
During calculation of the mass balances of these alternatives it appeared not to be
possible to realise this target. Route B3 in combination with an optimised alter-
native for route A5 results in the following maximal contributions of a cement kiln:

R35y HE : with 35% R and 65% ER; 33.8% ERmswi and 31.2% ERhigh (scenario III)
R50y HE : with 50% R and 50% ER; 33.8% ERmswi and 16.2% ERhigh (scenario IV)

The flows of the optimised routes are presented in table A6.1 (R35y HE) and ta-
ble A6.2 (R50y HE).
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 67 of 127

Appendices

yellow bag collection for 31.2 % ERhigh

INPUT COLLECTION SEPARATION APPLICATION

1 kg 2 kg 4 kg 10 kg
MSW nett packaging sorting Bottles preparation Rec.Bottles.
0.718 0.481 0.121 0.030

5 kg 11 kg
Films preparation MixedFilm
0.110 0.033

6 kg 12 kg
Mixed Plastic preparation Feed
0.243 0.100

9 kg
Cement Kiln
0.312

7 kg 13 kg
Res.Separ sorting res
0.004 0.004

8 14 kg
Metals 0.000 Metals
0.004 0.004

3 kg 15 kg
residual MSW residual
0.237 0.237

Figure A6.1 Route R35yHE for high efficiency energy recovery.

yellow bag collection for 16.2 % ER high

INPUT COLLECTION SEPARATION APPLICATION

1 kg 2 kg 4 kg 10 kg
MSW nett packaging sorting Bottles preparation Rec.Bottles.
0.718 0.481 0.121 0.030

5 kg 11 kg
Films preparation MixedFilm
0.110 0.133

6 kg 12 kg
Mixed Plastic preparation Feed
0.243 0.150

9 kg
Cement Kiln
0.162

7 kg 13 kg
Res.Separ sorting res
0.004 0.004

8 14 kg
Metals 0.000 Metals
0.004 0.004

3 kg 15 kg
residual MSW residual
0.237 0.237

Figure A6.2 Route R50y HE for high efficiency energy recovery.

 TNO-report

68 of 127 TNO-MEP R 2000/119

Appendices
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 69 of 127

Appendices

B. Results

B.1 Inventory items

A complete summary of environmental life cycle inventory items (emissions,

waste, depletions) as a combined result of foreground processes and background
processes is presented in table B.1.

Table B.1 gives a division of these items wich are classified (for impact assesment)
and not-classified (no impact assesment).
 TNO-report

70 of 127 TNO-MEP R 2000/119

Appendices

Table B.1 Inventory items in this study.

Depletions
classified not classified
Zn from ore clay minerals
wood 16 ferromanganese
U from ore 451E3 lubricant
U from ore 1.1E3 lubricating oil
Sn from ore marl
raw phosfate sand
raw lignite ETH 8 zeolite
raw coal ETH 18 ashes from steel production
raw coal 29.3 furnace slag
raw bauxite gypsum
Pt from ore pyrites ash
Pd from ore slate
Ni from ore Fe (ore)
Mn from ore Mn (ore)
gas nat (v) ETH 35 barite from ore
gas nat (v) 37 Mo from ore
gas nat (v) 32 raw bentonite
gas nat (feed)(v) 35 raw limestone
gas meth (w) 35.9 rhenium
gas from oil (v) 40.9 rhodium
Fe from ore rock salt
energy unspecified water
energy from uranium water process
energy from oil
energy from nat gas
energy from hydro power
energy from coal
Cu from ore
crude oil ETH 42.6
crude oil 42
Cr from ore
Co from ore
Ag from ore
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 71 of 127

Appendices

Table B.1 Inventory items in this study (continue).

Emissions to air
classified not classified
Zn Fe dust coarse
xylene F2 ethyne
vinylchloride ethylbenzene silicates
V ethene unspecified emission
toluene ethanol Al
Tl ethane B
SOx (as SO2) dust fine Ca
SO2 dioxin (TEQ) carbonblack
Sn Cu dust
Se Cr heavy metals
Sb cobalt I
propionicacid CO2 K
propene CO La
propane CN metals heavy undefined
phenol Cl2 metals undefined
pentane CFC-14 Mg
Pb CFC-116 Mn
PAH Cd Na
P butene Pt
NOx (as NO2) butane Sc
NO Br Sr
Ni benzo-a-pyrene Te
NH4 benzene Th
NH3 benzaldehyde Ti
N2O Be TV
Mo Ba U
methanol As Zr
methane alkenes
hydrocarbnm.undef. alkanes
hydrocarb.undefined aldehydes
hydrocarb.inc.msw aerosols
Hg acroleine
HF acetone
hexane-n aceticacid
heptane acetaldehyde
HCl 12 dichloroethane
HALON-1301 CxHy chloro
H2S
formaldehyde
fluoranthene
CxHy aromatic
 TNO-report

72 of 127 TNO-MEP R 2000/119

Appendices

Table B.1 Inventory items in this study (continue).

Emissions to water
classified not classified
Zn calcium compounds Ti
Xylene CxHy TOC
V CxHy aromatic TV
trichloroethene CxHy chloro W
Toluene dichloroethane
Sulphite methylenechloride
Sn organics dissolved
Se tributyltin
Sb unspecified emission
phosphate acid (as H+)
Phenol Ag
Pb Al
PAH alkene
Oil AOX
Nitrate B
Ni barite
NH4 BOD
NH3 Cl
N-total Cs
Mo DOC
Kjeld N glutaraldehyde
Hg H2S
formaldehyde HOCL
Fe I
F2 K
F metals undefined
ethylbenzene Mg
Cu Mn
CrVI Na
Cr oil crude
COD P-total
Cobalt S
CN salts
chlorobenzene Si
Cd solids anorg dissolved
benzene solids dissolved
Be solids suspended
Ba Sr
As sulphate
Alkanes sulphide
P2O5 Te
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 73 of 127

Appendices

Table B.1 Inventory items in this study (continue).

Wastes
classified not classified
solids gas treatment.inc.(H) unspecified
fly ash inc.(H) waste limestone
Undefined
Chemical waste (regulated)
Bottom ash
Slags/ash
Slag
Process waste (not inert)
Mineral waste
Low&med. act. nucl. waste
Industrial waste
High active nuclear waste
Final waste (inert)
Chemical waste (inert)
Chemical waste (not inert)
 TNO-report

74 of 127 TNO-MEP R 2000/119

Appendices

B.2 Characterisation factors

Characterisation values of inventory items according the environmental themes in

this study are presented in table B.2.
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 75 of 127

Appendices

Table B2. Characterisation factors in this study.

SUBSTANCE UNIT FACTOR

EDP
INPUT
Raw material energy unspecified MJ 0,001
Raw material energy from coal MJ 0,00029
Raw material energy from oil MJ 0,0041
Raw material energy from nat gas MJ 0,0023
Raw material energy from uranium MJ 0,016
3
Raw material gas from oil (v) 40.9 m 0,166
Raw material gas meth (w) 35.9 kg 0,0936
3
Raw material gas nat (v) ETH 35 m 0,104
Raw material U from ore 451E3 kg 7309
Raw material raw coal ETH 18 kg 0,00523
Raw material raw lignite ETH 8 kg 0,00223
Raw material gas nat (feed)(v) 35 m3 0,104
Raw material crude oil ETH 42.6 kg 0,175
Raw material gas nat (v) 32 m3 0,107
Raw material crude oil 42 kg 0,172
Raw material raw coal 29.3 kg 0,0085
Raw material gas nat (v) 37 m3 0,113
Raw material U from ore 1.1E3 kg 17,83
ADP
INPUT
Raw material Ag from ore kg 77664,4
Raw material Co from ore kg 320,2479
Raw material Cr from ore kg 0,218144
Raw material Cu from ore kg 27,35708
Raw material Fe from ore kg 0,032792
Raw material Mn from ore kg 0,296
Raw material Ni from ore kg 40,96939
Raw material Pd from ore kg 67472,67
Raw material Pt from ore kg 67472,67
Raw material raw bauxite kg 0,029739
Raw material raw phosfate kg 0,121958
Raw material Sn from ore kg 2400
Raw material Zn from ore kg 54,17815
Ener
INPUT
Raw material wood 16 kg 0,02
Raw material energy unspecified MJ 0,001
Raw material energy from coal MJ 0,001
Raw material energy from oil MJ 0,001
Raw material energy from hydro power MJ 0,001
Raw material energy from nat gas MJ 0,001
 TNO-report

76 of 127 TNO-MEP R 2000/119

Appendices

SUBSTANCE UNIT FACTOR

Raw material energy from uranium MJ 0,001
Raw material gas from oil (v) 40.9 m3 0,0409
Raw material gas meth (w) 35.9 kg 0,0359
3
Raw material gas nat (v) ETH 35 m 0,035
Raw material U from ore 451E3 kg 451
Raw material raw coal ETH 18 kg 0,018
Raw material raw lignite ETH 8 kg 0,008
3
Raw material gas nat (feed)(v) 35 m 0,035
Raw material crude oil ETH 42.6 kg 0,0426
Raw material gas nat (v) 32 m3 0,032
Raw material crude oil 42 kg 0,042
Raw material raw coal 29.3 kg 0,0293
Raw material gas nat (v) 37 m3 0,037
Raw material U from ore 1.1E3 kg 1,1
GWP
EMISSION TO
Air CO2 kg 1
Air N2 O kg 270
Air HALON-1301 kg 4900
Air methane kg 11
Air CFC-14 kg 4500
Air CFC-116 kg 6200
Air NOx (as NO2) kg 5,4
ODP
EMISSION TO
Air HALON-1301 kg 16
POCP
EMISSION TO
Air fluoranthene kg 0,761
Air ethane kg 0,082
Air pyrene kg 0,761
Air aldehydes kg 0,443
Air ethanol kg 0,268
Air HALON-1301 kg 0,021
Air methane kg 0,007
Air dioxin (TEQ) kg 0,416
Air CxHy chloro kg 0,021
Air CxHy aromatic kg 0,761
Air Benzene kg 0,189
Air Ethene kg 1
Air Propane kg 0,42
Air Propene kg 1,03
Air Toluene kg 0,56
Air Xylene kg 0,88
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 77 of 127

Appendices

SUBSTANCE UNIT FACTOR

Air Phenol kg 0,416
Air Formaldehyde kg 0,421
Air Pentane kg 0,408
Air Ethylbenzene kg 0,593
Air Acetaldehyde kg 0,526
Air Acetone kg 0,178
Air Propionicacid kg 0,416
Air Methanol kg 0,123
Air Heptane kg 0,529
Air Aceticacid kg 0,416
Air CFC-14 kg 0,021
Air Butene kg 0,959
Air CFC-116 kg 0,021
Air Butane kg 0,41
Air Benzaldehyde kg -0,334
Air Alkenes kg 0,906
Air Alkanes kg 0,398
Air 12 dichloroethane kg 0,021
Air Acroleine kg 0,416
Air Antracene kg 0,761
Air Benzo-a-antracene kg 0,761
Air Benzo-a-pyrene kg 0,761
Air Benzo-k-fluoranthene kg 0,761
Air Chrysene kg 0,761
Air Fenantrene kg 0,761
Air Hexane-n kg 0,421
Air Hydrocarbnm.undefined kg 0,416
Air Naftalene kg 0,761
Air PAH kg 0,761
Air Vinylchloride kg 0,021
Air Hydrocarb.undefined kg 0,416
Air Hydrocarb.inc.msw kg 0,46195
AP
EMISSION TO
Air SO2 kg 1
Air HCl kg 0,88
Air N2 O kg 0,7
Air HF kg 1,6
Air H2 S kg 1
Air NO kg 1,07
Air NO2 kg 0,7
Air SOx (as SO2) kg 1
Air NOx (as NO2) kg 0,7
Air NH3 kg 1,88
 TNO-report

78 of 127 TNO-MEP R 2000/119

Appendices

SUBSTANCE UNIT FACTOR

Air NH4 kg 1,88
Air NOx excl N2O kg 0,7
Air H2SO4 kg 1
Air acid (as H+) kg 1
Air sulphide kg 1
NP
EMISSION TO
Air N2 O kg 0,13
Air NO kg 0,13
Air NO2 kg 0,13
Air P kg 3,06
Air NOx (as NO2) kg 0,13
Air NH3 kg 0,33
Air NH4 kg 0,33
Air NOx excl N2O kg 0,13
Water COD kg 0,022
Water phosphate kg 1,5
Water P2O5 kg 1
Water N-total kg 0,42
Water NH4 kg 0,33
Water nitrate kg 0,1
Water Kjeld N kg 0,42
FW
OUTPUT OF
Solid waste process waste (not inert) kg 0,5
Solid waste final waste (inert) kg 1
Solid waste slag kg 0,5
Solid waste mineral waste kg 0,5
Solid waste industrial waste kg 1
Solid waste slags/ash kg 1
Solid waste undefined kg 1
Solid waste bottom ash kg 0
TW
OUTPUT OF
Solid waste High active nuclear waste m3 1000
Solid waste Low&med. act. nucl. waste m3 1000
Solid waste Chemical waste kg 1
Solid waste Chemical waste (regulated) kg 1
Solid waste Chemical waste (inert) kg 1
Solid waste Fly ash inc.(H) kg 1
Solid waste FGCR (H) kg 1
Solid waste Undefined (H) kg 1
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 79 of 127

Appendices

SUBSTANCE UNIT FACTOR

AETP
EMISSION TO
Air Fluoranthene kg 270
Air V kg 16000000
Air Se kg 28000000
Air Hg kg 1600000
Air Pb kg 9000
Air Cd kg 1500000
Air dioxin (TEQ) kg 3,9E+08
Air Zn kg 89000
Air As kg 290000
Air benzene kg 0,0037
Air ethene kg 1,1E-10
Air toluene kg 0,00093
Air xylene kg 0,000847
Air phenol kg 0,77
Air Cu kg 1200000
Air formaldehyde kg 2,4
Air Sn kg 9600
Air cobalt kg 7200000
Air ethylbenzene kg 0,0011
Air Be kg 6,2E+08
Air Mo kg 2600000
Air Sb kg 44000
Air Tl kg 34000000
Air Ba kg 1000000
Air Ni kg 5000000
Air 12 dichloroethane kg 0,11
Air acroleine kg 770
Air antracene kg 2300
Air benzo-a-antracene kg 1400
Air benzo-a-pyrene kg 1800
Air benzo-k-fluoranthene kg 160000
Air chrysene kg 550
Air fenantrene kg 9,7
Air naftalene kg 1,2
Air PAH kg 5700
Air vinylchloride kg 0,00017
Soil Cd kg 150000
Soil Hg kg 220000
Soil Pb kg 880
Soil Zn kg 9400
Soil As kg 81000
Soil Cu kg 170000
 TNO-report

80 of 127 TNO-MEP R 2000/119

Appendices

SUBSTANCE UNIT FACTOR

Soil phenol kg 0,159027
Water V kg 20100000
Water ethene kg 0,002566
Water Pb kg 10950
Water Hg kg 1834000
Water phenol kg 6,2
Water Sn kg 11680
Water Cd kg 1837000
Water Zn kg 110400
Water Sb kg 56300
Water Cu kg 1493000
Water Mo kg 3290000
Water As kg 370000
Water benzene kg 0,01577
Water Ba kg 0
Water Ni kg 6290000
Water toluene kg 0,05036
Water Be kg 8,18E+08
Water xylene kg 0,128967
Water Se kg 36800000
Water formaldehyde kg 7,5
Water trichloroethene kg 0,05457
Water chlorobenzene kg 0,377
Water cobalt kg 9440000
Water CrVI kg 32180
Water ethylbenzene kg 0,0622
Water PAH kg 24800
HTP
EMISSION TO
Air V kg 6000
Air Se kg 43000
Air SO2 kg 0,33
Air HCl kg 2,4
Air Hg kg 1200
Air H2 S kg 0,77
Air Pb kg 360
Air NO2 kg 1,4
Air Cd kg 160000
Air Dioxin (TEQ) kg 2,1E+09
Air Zn kg 110
Air As kg 370000
Air Benzene kg 2000
Air Ethene kg 0,69
Air Toluene kg 0,36
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 81 of 127

Appendices

SUBSTANCE UNIT FACTOR

Air Xylene kg 0,072333
Air Phenol kg 0,57
Air Cu kg 4700
Air Formaldehyde kg 0,91
Air Sn kg 1,2
Air Cobalt kg 19000
Air Ethylbenzene kg 1,1
Air Be kg 240000
Air Mo kg 4900
Air Sb kg 6200
Air Tl kg 310000
Air Ba kg 710
Air Ni kg 38000
Air 12 dichloroethane kg 7
Air Acroleine kg 62
Air Antracene kg 0,57
Air Dust fine kg 0,9
Air Naftalene kg 8,9
Air NH3 kg 1
Air PAH kg 630000
Air Vinylchloride kg 92
Soil Cd kg 19727,03
Soil Hg kg 929,7297
Soil Pb kg 1727,027
Soil Zn kg 27,09459
Soil As kg 3270,27
Soil Cu kg 248,973
Soil phenol kg 1,461243
Water V kg 4790
Water ethene kg 0,2487
Water Pb kg 54,7
Water Hg kg 1055
Water phenol kg 0,016261
Water Sn kg 0,073
Water Cd kg 73,4
Water Zn kg 2,201
Water Sb kg 6870
Water Cu kg 4,17
Water Mo kg 5770
Water As kg 1804
Water benzene kg 724
Water Ba kg 675
Water Ni kg 562
Water toluene kg 0,1284
 TNO-report

82 of 127 TNO-MEP R 2000/119

Appendices

SUBSTANCE UNIT FACTOR

Water Be kg 14400
Water xylene kg 0,133367
Water Se kg 55200
Water formaldehyde kg 0,012022
Water trichloroethene kg 21,3
Water chlorobenzene kg 6,63
Water cobalt kg 67,5
Water CrVI kg 11,52
Water ethylbenzene kg 0,3232
Water PAH kg 114700
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 83 of 127

Appendices

B.3 Calculated results of routes

B.3.1 Total amounts of substances per route

In this study the overview of amounts of substances per route are generated in two
different sections for practical reasons. Routes (or route variants) including the ap-
plication landfill (Table B.3.1.1) are calculated separately of routes (or route vari-
ants) including the MSWI application (Table B.3.1.2).

Table B3.1.1 Substances overview routes with landfill

Routes for IW Routes for MSW

Substance Unit B1 B2 A1 A2
L L L L

Resources
clay minerals Mg -2,849 -0,251
Ferromanganese Kg 0,000
sand Kg 0,000
Fe (ore) Mg -28,500 -11,400
Mn (ore) Kg 0,000
crude oil ETH 42.6 g 11,070 21,800 9,330 12,800
energy from coal KJ -320,000 -119,000
energy from hydro power J 517,000 192,000 435,000 -637,000
energy from nat gas MJ -4,410 -1,070
energy from oil MJ -5,230 -1,190
energy from uranium KJ -169,400 -65,600
energy unspecified KJ -19,160 -4,840
gas nat (v) ETH 35 l 0,560 3,020 0,470 1,050
raw bauxite Mg -40,510 -8,690
raw coal 29.3 Kg 0,000
raw coal ETH 18 g 0,088 11,090 0,075 2,410
raw lignite ETH 8 g 0,118 11,640 0,099 2,560
raw limestone Mg -20,300 -72,200
raw phosfate Kg 0,000
rock salt Mg -820,000 -3170,000
U from ore 451E3 Mg 0,008 1,175 0,007 0,255
water Kg -1,932 -0,608
wood 16 Mg 0,868 108,400 0,732 23,600

Emissions to air
CxHy aromatic Mg 0,219 0,783 0,184 0,327
CxHy chloro Mg 0,000 0,000 -2,270
unspecified emission g -126000,000
benzene Mg 1,320 2,280 1,100 1,450
Cd g 0,355 1,477 0,299 0,573
 TNO-report

84 of 127 TNO-MEP R 2000/119

Appendices

Routes for IW Routes for MSW

Substance Unit B1 B2 A1 A2
L L L L

Cl2 Kg 0,000
CO Mg 246,000 274,700 274,000 59,300
CO2 g 67,000 -138,200 103,000 50,200
Dioxin (TEQ) Ng 0,051 0,030 0,119 0,114
dust mg 15,000 76,000 12,700 27,000
Dust fine mg -314,000 -104,000
H2S g -454,000
HALON-1301 g 2,660 5,240 2,230 3,050
HCl mg 0,075 -0,010 0,063 -1,830
HF g 7,830 327,000 6,570 104,000
Hg g 0,037 1,240 0,031 0,290
hydrocarb.undefined g -2,161 -0,869
Hydrocarbnm.undefined mg 228,000 413,000 192,000 254,000
metals heavy undef g -599,000 -207,000
metals undefined mg 0,115 2,315 0,097 0,575
methane g 4,300 2,670 10,100 9,730
Mn g 0,030 3,918 0,025 0,852
N2O mg 0,878 1,900 0,742 1,050
NH4 g 0,995 119,800 0,835 26,200
Ni g 17,600 89,200 14,800 31,800
NOx (as NO2) g 0,691 -0,125 0,629 0,330
PAH g 0,276 1,740 0,232 0,570
Pb g 1,960 12,270 1,640 4,030
SOx (as SO2) g 0,055 -0,858 0,046 -0,392
Zn g 11,760 32,800 9,840 15,500
Emissions to water
CxHy mg -21,060 -6,540
CxHy aromatic mg 0,474 0,934 0,399 0,546
CxHy chloro g 0,488 1,000 0,410 -12,800
organics dissolved mg -3,000 -180,000
P2O5 kg 0,000
unspecified emission mg -12,081 -0,119
acid (as H+) mg -8,520 -3,880
Al mg 0,147 17,980 0,123 3,920
AOX g 2,190 4,240 1,840 2,500
As g 0,950 36,840 1,190 8,860
Ba mg 1,410 4,160 1,180 1,910
BOD mg 0,050 -17,600 0,042 -16,000
Cd g 0,930 2,380 3,230 3,630
Cl g 0,301 0,654 0,468 0,386
CN g 2,200 4,890 1,850 2,650
COD mg 3,300 -126,000 5,600 -61,000
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 85 of 127

Appendices

Routes for IW Routes for MSW

Substance Unit B1 B2 A1 A2
L L L L

Cr g 6,560 187,100 5,940 44,900

Cu g 1,790 90,300 1,750 20,700
DOC g 0,263 27,480 0,222 6,020
Fe Mg 0,312 24,240 0,263 5,360
Hg Ng 33,200 56,200 89,800 92,800
Kjeld N g 206,000 366,000 174,000 229,000
metals undefined Mg 3,420 -23,660 2,880 -1,140
N-total Mg 1,740 2,500 2,410 2,650
Na Kg 0,000
NH4 Mg 1,220 1,580 1,030 1,350
Ni g 2,280 89,400 1,920 20,600
nitrate g 367,000 -139,000 308,000 451,000
oil Mg 14,900 29,300 12,500 17,100
oil crude Mg -16,730 -2,870
PAH g 7,290 14,340 6,110 8,360
Pb g 1,680 110,000 2,870 26,000
phenol g 79,000 150,300 76,000 98,700
phosphate g 14,400 -212,400 12,200 178,000
SO4 Mg 3,640 2,040 7,560 7,510
solids anorg dissolved Mg 214,000 525,000 181,000 268,000
solids dissolved Mg -31,400 -13,200
solids suspended Mg 31,800 21,100 26,700 14,700
sulphate Mg 10,480 218,300 8,820 46,700
sulphide g 17,500 34,900 14,700 20,200
TOC Mg 5,120 11,760 4,310 6,240
toluene g 66,400 130,000 55,600 76,000
Zn g 10,500 191,100 11,600 50,900

Waste to deposit
chemical waste (inert) Mg -423,100 -83,900
industrial waste Mg -442,700 -97,300
mineral waste g -2,572 -0,978
slag Kg 0,000
slags/ash Mg -900,000 -160,000
chemical waste (regulated) Mg -8,800 -18,500
undefined g 268,000 154,000 682,000 654,000
undefined (H) g 0,130 0,070 7,880 7,870
Emissions to soil
As Ng 4,500 2,600 11,800 11,300
Cd Ng 18,000 11,000 163,000 158,000
Cl Mg 0,700 0,400 44,600 44,600
COD Mg 13,300 7,600 33,900 32,500
Cr Ng 32,900 19,000 62,900 62,400
 TNO-report

86 of 127 TNO-MEP R 2000/119

Appendices

Routes for IW Routes for MSW

Substance Unit B1 B2 A1 A2
L L L L

Cu Ng 2,060 1,160 8,940 8,760

Hg Ng 1,130 0,630 3,480 3,270
N-total mg 1,040 0,600 2,640 2,530
Pb ng 18,000 11,000 163,000 163,000
phenol g 1,690 0,970 4,310 4,130
SO4 g 107,000 59,000 220,000 219,000
Zn g 8,100 4,900 12,500 12,400
Table B3.1.2 Substance overview routes with MSWI
TNO-report

Appendices
Routes for IW Routes for MSW
B1 B2 B3 A1 A2 A4 A4 A4 A5 A5 A5 A5 A5 A5 A5
NOW R50g R25y R35y R50y R35y HE R50y HE R10m
TNO-MEP R 2000/119

Substance Unit
Resources
clay minerals g -0,100 -7,930 0,000 0,000 0,000 -21,459 -12,400 -0,001 -24,000 -29,100 -3,930 -15,800 -41,100
ferromanganese g -13,400 -13,400 -13,400 -13,400 -51,600 -48,600 -26,900 -16,200 -13,500 -13,400 -51,600
lubricant g 8,000 5,000 25,000 481,000 481,000 284,000 275,000 341,900 206,000 171,000 236,000 243,000 172,000 206,000 287,000
lubricating oil Mg 0,800 0,500 2,500 48,100 48,100 28,400 27,500 34,190 20,600 17,100 23,600 24,300 17,200 20,600 28,700
marl Kg 0,000 -0,225 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 -0,609 -0,353 0,000 -0,681 -0,824 -0,111 -0,447 -1,170
sand Mg 0,005 0,010 -4,710 -4,720 -4,720 -4,720 -18,200 -17,200 -9,500 -5,730 -4,770 -4,730 -18,200
zeolite g 0,022 0,020 -2,350 0,056 0,053 0,028 0,027 -6,332 -3,670 0,020 -7,090 -8,600 -1,150 -4,660 -12,200
ashes from steel prod. g -12,630 -33,877 -19,700 -37,900 -45,900 -6,210 -24,900 -64,900
furnace slag g -15,200 -41,044 -23,800 -45,900 -55,600 -7,520 -30,200 -78,600
gypsum g -7,020 -18,827 -10,900 -21,100 -25,500 -3,450 -13,800 -36,100
pyrites ash g -2,660 -7,157 -4,150 -8,010 -9,700 -1,310 -5,260 -13,700
slate g -6,640 -17,911 -10,400 -20,000 -24,200 -3,280 -13,200 -34,300
Fe (ore) Mg 0,115 -28,400 -28,500 0,240 -11,100 -11,300 -11,300 -11,300 -43,900 -41,300 -22,800 -13,700 -11,400 -11,300 -43,800
Mn (ore) Mg -0,669 -0,669 -0,669 -0,669 -2,580 -2,430 -1,340 -0,811 -0,675 -0,670 -2,580
Ag from ore Ng 0,960 1,000 -102,600 2,430 2,330 1,210 1,160 -277,680 -161,000 0,862 -311,000 -377,000 -50,200 -204,000 -533,000
barite from ore Mg 0,002 0,001 -0,212 0,005 0,005 0,003 0,002 -0,571 -0,331 0,002 -0,640 -0,776 -0,103 -0,420 -1,100
Co from ore Ng 0,000 0,000 -0,005 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 -0,014 -0,008 0,000 -0,015 -0,019 -0,002 -0,010 -0,026
Cr from ore g 0,097 0,100 -10,560 0,249 0,238 0,124 0,119 -28,326 -16,400 0,088 -31,700 -38,500 -5,120 -20,800 -54,400
crude oil 42 mg -47,700 -128,470 -74,600 -144,000 -174,000 -23,500 -94,600 -246,000
crude oil ETH 42.6 g -19,700 5,000 13,700 -58,200 -52,300 -347,000 -5,910 -160,660 -235,000 -354,000 -194,000 -173,000 -93,100 -143,000 22,900
Cu from ore g 0,190 0,100 -17,020 0,485 0,465 0,242 0,231 -45,737 -26,500 0,172 -51,300 -62,200 -8,260 -33,700 -88,000
energy from coal kJ 1,480 -320,000 -320,000 3,050 -116,000 -118,000 -118,000 -117,000 -457,000 -430,000 -237,000 -142,000 -119,000 -118,000 -457,000
energy from hydro power MJ -0,430 -0,247 -0,153 -0,950 -0,917 -0,028 0,007 -0,010 -0,156 -0,164 -0,150 -0,134 -0,134 -0,132 -0,138
energy from nat gas MJ 0,001 -4,410 -4,410 0,002 -1,060 -1,070 -1,070 -1,060 -4,120 -3,870 -2,140 -1,290 -1,080 -1,070 -4,120
energy from oil MJ 0,001 -5,230 -5,230 0,002 -1,190 -1,190 -1,190 -1,190 -4,600 -4,320 -2,390 -1,440 -1,200 -1,190 -4,600
energy from uranium kJ 1,450 -169,000 -169,600 2,990 -62,600 -64,400 -64,500 -64,071 -252,000 -237,000 -130,000 -78,000 -65,100 -64,500 -252,000
energy unspecified MJ 0,001 -0,018 -0,495 0,003 -0,002 -0,003 -0,003 -1,285 -0,762 -0,017 -1,440 -1,740 -0,239 -0,947 -2,480
Fe from ore mg 0,016 0,010 -1,586 0,041 0,040 0,021 0,020 -4,272 -2,470 0,015 -4,790 -5,800 -0,772 -3,140 -8,200
gas from oil (v) 40.9 cm3 0,016 0,010 -1,700 0,040 0,038 0,020 0,019 -4,571 -2,650 0,014 -5,120 -6,210 -0,827 -3,360 -8,780
gas meth (w) 35.9 mg 0,009 -1,021 0,024 0,023 0,012 0,011 -2,747 -1,590 0,008 -3,080 -3,730 -0,497 -2,020 -5,280
gas nat (feed)(v) 35 cm3 29,800 17,100 13,200 66,000 64,500 31,200 29,600 39,090 28,100 23,300 32,400 33,300 23,600 28,200 39,100
87 of 127
 Routes for IW Routes for MSW
88 of 127
B1 B2 B3 A1 A2 A4 A4 A4 A5 A5 A5 A5 A5 A5 A5
NOW R50g R25y R35y R50y R35y HE R50y HE R10m
Substance Unit
gas nat (v) 32 l 0,048 0,030 -1,608 0,121 0,116 0,061 0,058 -4,321 -2,500 0,043 -4,860 -5,890 -0,761 -3,180 -8,350
gas nat (v) 37 cm3 7,700 4,500 3,390 17,200 16,800 8,120 7,710 10,187 7,300 6,050 8,420 8,670 6,140 7,330 10,200
gas nat (v) ETH 35 l -21,000 -9,200 -5,000 -42,800 -40,500 -25,100 -14,300 -17,117 -21,100 -26,300 -20,700 -19,900 -20,500 -20,800 -10,200
Mn from ore g 0,018 0,010 -1,895 0,045 0,044 0,023 0,022 -5,093 -2,950 0,016 -5,710 -6,920 -0,922 -3,750 -9,790
Mo from ore ng 0,000 0,000 -0,002 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 -0,005 -0,003 0,000 -0,006 -0,007 -0,001 -0,004 -0,010
Ni from ore g 0,069 0,100 -7,370 0,175 0,168 0,087 0,083 -19,943 -11,600 0,062 -22,400 -27,100 -3,610 -14,700 -38,300
Pd from ore ng 9,600 5,000 -168,300 24,600 23,500 12,300 11,700 -449,660 -259,000 8,710 -508,000 -618,000 -76,300 -331,000 -876,000
Pt from ore ng 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 -0,001 0,000 0,000 -0,001 -0,001 0,000 0,000 -0,001
raw bauxite mg 0,002 -40,500 -40,570 0,006 -8,690 -8,690 -8,690 -8,900 -33,700 -31,600 -17,700 -10,800 -8,810 -8,870 -34,000
raw bentonite mg 0,002 0,001 -0,223 0,005 0,005 0,003 0,003 -0,600 -0,348 0,002 -0,673 -0,816 -0,109 -0,442 -1,150
raw coal 29.3 g 0,375 0,210 -0,864 0,955 0,912 0,473 0,452 -2,204 -1,220 0,327 -2,660 -3,300 -0,172 -1,650 -4,790
raw coal ETH 18 g -82,000 -35,400 -20,000 -178,000 -170,000 -24,000 -828,000 -25,430 -32,500 -31,800 -38,800 -39,000 -762,000 -415,000 -35,600
raw lignite ETH 8 g -65,000 -25,700 -11,510 -144,000 -136,000 -7,970 -2,710 -2,361 -18,100 -21,700 -21,500 -20,900 -24,900 -23,200 -11,400
raw limestone g 0,900 0,500 2,700 53,400 53,300 31,500 30,400 37,919 22,600 18,800 26,100 26,900 19,100 22,800 31,600
raw phosfate mg -0,401 -0,401 -0,401 -0,401 -1,550 -1,460 -0,807 -0,487 -0,405 -0,402 -1,550
rhenium ng 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000
rhodium ng 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000
rock salt g 0,149 -0,800 -0,760 0,307 -2,860 -3,050 -3,060 -3,010 -12,100 -11,400 -6,220 -3,690 -3,090 -3,050 -12,100
Sn from ore ng 0,530 0,300 -57,300 1,350 1,300 0,675 0,645 -154,080 -89,300 0,480 -173,000 -209,000 -27,900 -113,000 -296,000
U from ore 1.1E3 mg -6,390 -17,253 -9,990 -19,300 -23,300 -3,150 -12,700 -33,000
U from ore 451E3 mg -6,600 -2,600 -1,152 -14,500 -13,700 -0,193 0,347 0,091 -1,370 -1,560 -1,770 -1,750 -1,800 -1,780 -1,090
water kg 0,002 -1,930 -1,959 0,003 -0,605 -0,607 -0,607 -0,680 -2,390 -2,210 -1,300 -0,836 -0,626 -0,663 -2,490
water process mm3 47,000 27,200 20,900 105,000 102,000 49,600 47,100 62,093 44,600 37,000 51,400 52,900 37,500 44,800 62,200
wood 16 g -0,790 -0,344 -0,180 -1,740 -1,650 -0,231 -7,930 -0,244 -0,314 -0,309 -0,375 -0,378 -7,300 -3,980 -0,343
Zn from ore ng 0,670 -71,900 1,690 1,620 0,844 0,807 -193,560 -112,000 0,600 -217,000 -263,000 -35,000 -142,000 -372,000
Emissions to air
CxHy aromatic mg -2,620 -0,840 -0,180 -6,030 -5,660 -7,300 -0,384 -3,474 -5,370 -7,820 -4,700 -4,280 -2,760 -3,730 -0,131
CxHy chloro mg 0,000 0,000 -2,270 -2,270 -2,270 -2,270 -8,780 -8,260 -4,570 -2,760 -2,290 -2,280 -8,780
dust coarse mg 0,009 0,010 -0,906 0,022 0,021 0,011 0,010 -2,448 -1,420 0,008 -2,740 -3,320 -0,443 -1,800 -4,700
ethyne ng 0,095 0,100 -10,130 0,242 0,232 0,121 0,116 -27,368 -15,900 0,086 -30,700 -37,200 -4,950 -20,100 -52,600
silicates g 0,209 0,100 -22,700 0,532 0,510 0,265 0,254 -61,116 -35,400 0,189 -68,500 -83,000 -11,100 -44,900 -117,000
unspecified emission mg 0,072 0,184 -126,000 -126,000 -126,000 -126,000 -485,000 -457,000 -253,000 -152,000 -127,000 -126,000 -485,000
12 dichloroethane ng 0,028 0,020 -1,862 0,073 0,070 0,036 0,035 -5,004 -2,900 0,026 -5,610 -6,800 -0,898 -3,680 -9,630
acetaldehyde g 0,003 0,002 -0,279 0,007 0,006 0,003 0,003 -0,752 -0,436 0,002 -0,843 -1,020 -0,136 -0,553 -1,450
aceticacid g 0,012 0,010 -1,284 0,030 0,029 0,015 0,014 -3,444 -2,000 0,011 -3,860 -4,680 -0,624 -2,530 -6,620
TNO-MEP R 2000/119
TNO-report

Appendices
 Routes for IW Routes for MSW
B1 B2 B3 A1 A2 A4 A4 A4 A5 A5 A5 A5 A5 A5 A5
TNO-report

NOW R50g R25y R35y R50y R35y HE R50y HE R10m Appendices

Substance Unit
acetone g 0,003 0,002 -0,278 0,007 0,006 0,003 0,003 -0,749 -0,434 0,002 -0,839 -1,020 -0,136 -0,551 -1,440
acroleine ng 0,001 0,000 -0,050 0,001 0,001 0,001 0,001 -0,134 -0,078 0,001 -0,151 -0,183 -0,024 -0,099 -0,259
TNO-MEP R 2000/119

aerosols mg 29,000 16,600 12,700 64,100 61,800 30,500 29,000 38,219 27,300 22,700 31,500 32,400 22,900 27,400 38,100
Al g 0,082 0,100 -8,920 0,209 0,200 0,104 0,100 -24,120 -14,000 0,074 -27,000 -32,700 -4,360 -17,700 -46,300
aldehydes g 3,750 2,200 -10,560 9,550 9,160 4,760 4,550 -27,132 -15,100 3,390 -32,300 -40,000 -2,640 -20,200 -57,700
alkanes g 0,024 0,020 -2,590 0,061 0,059 0,030 0,029 -6,966 -4,040 0,022 -7,810 -9,470 -1,260 -5,130 -13,400
alkenes g 0,008 -0,880 0,021 0,020 0,010 0,010 -2,369 -1,370 0,007 -2,650 -3,220 -0,429 -1,740 -4,550
As ng 113,000 64,900 22,000 296,000 284,000 149,000 142,000 102,678 79,100 105,000 53,900 38,900 91,000 66,500 19,800
B g 0,062 0,100 -6,710 0,159 0,152 0,079 0,076 -18,069 -10,500 0,056 -20,300 -24,600 -3,280 -13,300 -34,800
Ba ng 1,120 1,000 -121,600 2,860 2,740 1,420 1,360 -326,900 -190,000 1,010 -367,000 -444,000 -59,200 -241,000 -628,000
Be ng 0,011 0,010 -1,214 0,029 0,027 0,014 0,014 -3,276 -1,900 0,010 -3,670 -4,450 -0,593 -2,410 -6,300
benzaldehyde ng 0,000 0,000 -0,017 0,001 0,000 0,000 0,000 -0,046 -0,027 0,000 -0,052 -0,063 -0,008 -0,034 -0,089
benzene mg 0,490 1,820 2,382 -0,643 -0,235 -1,190 1,290 0,258 2,110 1,020 2,500 2,640 3,020 2,740 4,480
benzo-a-pyrene ng 16,900 9,700 7,500 43,100 41,300 21,500 20,500 25,974 18,000 15,300 20,400 20,900 15,300 17,900 24,400
Br g 0,004 0,002 -0,438 0,010 0,010 0,005 0,005 -1,176 -0,682 0,004 -1,320 -1,600 -0,213 -0,867 -2,260
butane g 0,035 0,020 -3,740 0,088 0,085 0,044 0,042 -10,086 -5,840 0,031 -11,300 -13,700 -1,820 -7,410 -19,400
butene ng 0,550 0,300 -59,600 1,410 1,350 0,702 0,671 -160,370 -92,900 0,499 -180,000 -218,000 -29,000 -118,000 -308,000
Ca g 0,052 0,030 -5,690 0,134 0,128 0,067 0,064 -15,279 -8,870 0,048 -17,200 -20,800 -2,770 -11,300 -29,400
carbonblack g 91,000 52,600 42,000 233,000 223,000 116,000 111,000 144,160 99,400 82,500 114,000 118,000 83,300 99,400 138,000
Cd g 25,000 15,000 26,000 349,000 351,000 199,000 210,000 252,900 141,000 108,000 165,000 172,000 123,000 145,000 215,000
CFC-116 ng 0,101 0,060 -3,250 0,257 0,246 0,128 0,122 -8,727 -5,050 0,091 -9,830 -11,900 -1,540 -6,430 -16,900
CFC-14 ng 0,800 0,500 -26,100 2,060 1,970 1,020 0,980 -69,944 -40,400 0,728 -78,600 -95,400 -12,300 -51,500 -135,000
Cl2 g -4,460 -4,460 -4,460 -4,460 -17,200 -16,200 -8,960 -5,410 -4,500 -4,470 -17,200
CN ng 0,003 0,001 -0,335 0,008 0,008 0,004 0,004 -0,899 -0,521 0,003 -1,010 -1,220 -0,163 -0,662 -1,730
CO mg 382,000 352,600 327,000 576,000 351,000 172,000 154,000 118,368 -295,000 -237,000 154,000 331,000 423,000 403,000 -301,000
CO2 kg 0,540 0,132 -0,025 1,270 1,170 0,711 0,780 0,667 0,265 0,290 0,323 0,330 0,469 0,405 0,229
cobalt ng 0,630 -68,000 1,600 1,530 0,797 0,762 -181,690 -105,000 0,567 -204,000 -247,000 -32,900 -134,000 -349,000
Cr ng 0,600 -65,300 1,540 1,480 0,768 0,734 -176,110 -102,000 0,546 -197,000 -239,000 -31,800 -129,000 -338,000
Cu ng 1,480 -159,800 3,780 3,620 1,880 1,800 -430,760 -249,000 1,340 -483,000 -585,000 -77,900 -317,000 -827,000
dioxin (TEQ) ng 0,580 0,331 0,255 1,280 1,240 0,610 0,580 0,764 0,547 0,453 0,630 0,648 0,459 0,548 0,762
dust mg -313,000 -112,000 -20,020 -312,000 -271,000 109,000 -55,800 210,860 52,600 -13,100 67,400 79,100 -196,000 -67,800 192,000
dust fine mg 0,830 -314,000 -348,000 1,730 -102,000 -103,000 -103,000 -194,700 -454,000 -377,000 -311,000 -249,000 -121,000 -171,000 -576,000
ethane g 0,055 0,030 -5,900 0,139 0,134 0,070 0,066 -15,866 -9,200 0,049 -17,800 -21,600 -2,880 -11,700 -30,500
ethanol g 0,005 0,003 -0,558 0,013 0,013 0,007 0,006 -1,505 -0,870 0,005 -1,680 -2,040 -0,272 -1,100 -2,880
ethene g 0,003 0,002 -0,329 0,008 0,007 0,004 0,004 -0,883 -0,512 0,003 -0,990 -1,200 -0,160 -0,650 -1,700
89 of 127
 Routes for IW Routes for MSW
90 of 127
B1 B2 B3 A1 A2 A4 A4 A4 A5 A5 A5 A5 A5 A5 A5
NOW R50g R25y R35y R50y R35y HE R50y HE R10m
Substance Unit
ethylbenzene g 0,008 -0,872 0,021 0,020 0,010 0,010 -2,356 -1,360 0,007 -2,640 -3,200 -0,426 -1,730 -4,520
F2 g 0,540 0,308 0,244 1,360 1,310 0,680 0,650 0,844 0,583 0,484 0,669 0,689 0,488 0,583 0,812
Fe g 0,043 0,020 -4,760 0,112 0,107 0,056 0,053 -12,847 -7,420 0,040 -14,400 -17,400 -2,320 -9,430 -24,600
fluoranthene ng 169,000 97,000 78,000 431,000 413,000 215,000 205,000 266,320 184,000 153,000 211,000 218,000 154,000 184,000 256,000
formaldehyde g 0,020 0,020 -2,160 0,051 0,049 0,025 0,024 -5,813 -3,370 0,018 -6,510 -7,890 -1,050 -4,280 -11,200
H2S g 76,000 -409,800 -419,600 194,000 186,000 96,700 92,400 117,870 81,800 68,700 93,200 95,500 69,100 81,600 112,000
HALON-1301 g -4,700 1,100 3,300 -13,800 -12,400 -82,900 0,118 -38,268 -56,000 -84,500 -46,400 -41,400 -20,900 -33,500 5,550
HCl mg -53,000 -30,000 -6,000 172,000 174,000 131,000 138,000 175,190 74,000 47,900 96,200 104,000 60,400 80,700 134,000
heptane g 0,006 0,003 -0,596 0,014 0,014 0,007 0,007 -1,604 -0,929 0,005 -1,800 -2,180 -0,290 -1,180 -3,080
hexane-n g 0,012 0,010 -1,257 0,030 0,028 0,015 0,014 -3,378 -1,960 0,011 -3,780 -4,590 -0,611 -2,480 -6,490
HF mg -4,600 -2,290 -1,320 -10,000 -9,550 -2,690 -0,872 -1,495 -3,000 -3,760 -2,960 -2,780 -2,710 -2,810 -1,440
Hg g 31,000 18,600 16,900 104,000 97,700 50,600 46,500 65,825 48,600 39,200 55,800 57,400 37,300 46,800 70,000
hydrocarb.inc.msw mg 58,000 33,100 25,500 128,000 124,000 61,000 58,000 76,438 54,700 45,300 63,000 64,800 45,900 54,800 76,200
hydrocarb.undefined g 0,003 -2,160 -2,195 0,007 -0,863 -0,866 -0,866 -0,967 -3,410 -3,160 -1,860 -1,190 -0,894 -0,943 -3,550
hydrocarbnm.undefined g -0,038 0,260 0,383 -0,390 -0,306 -2,410 0,118 -0,997 -1,280 -2,200 -0,964 -0,808 -0,256 -0,610 0,713
I g 0,002 0,001 -0,211 0,005 0,005 0,002 0,002 -0,567 -0,328 0,002 -0,635 -0,770 -0,103 -0,417 -1,090
K g 0,010 0,010 -1,087 0,026 0,025 0,013 0,012 -2,934 -1,700 0,009 -3,290 -3,990 -0,531 -2,160 -5,640
La ng 0,032 0,020 -3,510 0,082 0,079 0,041 0,039 -9,442 -5,460 0,029 -10,600 -12,800 -1,710 -6,940 -18,100
metals heavy undef mg 0,001 -0,603 -0,600 0,001 -0,205 -0,206 -0,206 -0,206 -0,797 -0,750 -0,415 -0,250 -0,208 -0,207 -0,797
metals undefined mg -21,200 -9,900 -5,900 -46,800 -44,600 -61,600 -36,100 -35,612 -48,900 -65,400 -44,700 -41,800 -50,800 -48,200 -13,600
methane g -0,740 -0,280 -0,130 -1,680 -1,580 -1,540 -5,670 -0,897 -1,210 -1,630 -1,140 -1,080 -5,600 -3,470 -0,326
methanol g 0,005 0,003 -0,559 0,013 0,013 0,007 0,006 -1,505 -0,871 0,005 -1,690 -2,040 -0,272 -1,110 -2,890
Mg g 0,029 0,010 -3,200 0,075 0,072 0,037 0,036 -8,634 -4,990 0,027 -9,660 -11,700 -1,560 -6,340 -16,600
Mn g -29,100 -12,700 -7,000 -63,800 -60,700 -7,370 -31,800 -8,751 -10,700 -9,940 -13,200 -13,400 -34,600 -24,400 -13,000
Mo ng 0,184 0,100 -19,810 0,466 0,447 0,233 0,222 -53,362 -30,900 0,165 -59,800 -72,400 -9,650 -39,200 -102,000
N2O mg -2,760 -0,180 -0,200 -7,130 -6,530 -3,080 -16,600 -4,186 -2,310 -1,880 -3,550 -4,020 -15,100 -9,850 -3,530
Na g 0,014 0,010 -1,513 0,036 0,034 0,018 0,017 -4,062 -2,350 0,013 -4,550 -5,510 -0,735 -2,990 -7,800
NH3 mg 1,490 0,850 0,660 3,290 3,220 1,560 1,480 1,947 1,400 1,160 1,610 1,660 1,180 1,400 1,950
NH4 mg -0,690 -0,273 -0,150 -1,500 -1,420 -0,055 -0,631 -0,092 -0,210 -0,192 -0,290 -0,304 -0,800 -0,562 -0,269
Ni mg -0,660 -0,298 -0,174 -1,480 -1,410 -1,040 -0,328 -0,737 -0,842 -1,040 -0,827 -0,794 -0,541 -0,685 -0,439
NO mg 23,600 13,600 10,300 52,200 51,000 24,700 23,400 30,932 22,200 18,400 25,600 26,400 18,700 22,300 31,000
NOx (as NO2) g -0,070 -0,561 -0,643 -1,040 -1,280 -0,272 -0,182 -1,127 -0,939 -0,442 -0,602 -0,474 0,637 0,144 -1,890
P ng 0,970 1,000 -104,600 2,450 2,350 1,220 1,170 -282,550 -164,000 0,869 -317,000 -384,000 -51,200 -208,000 -543,000
PAH g -10,100 -4,110 -2,010 -21,000 -19,900 -9,710 -5,210 -6,035 -8,390 -10,800 -8,270 -7,870 -8,580 -8,480 -3,430
Pb g -96,000 -43,300 -22,800 -151,000 -141,000 -45,800 -113,000 -28,083 -49,000 -60,600 -50,200 -48,200 -132,000 -93,100 -25,400
TNO-MEP R 2000/119
TNO-report

Appendices
 Routes for IW Routes for MSW
B1 B2 B3 A1 A2 A4 A4 A4 A5 A5 A5 A5 A5 A5 A5
TNO-report

NOW R50g R25y R35y R50y R35y HE R50y HE R10m Appendices

Substance Unit
pentane g 0,046 0,030 -4,970 0,117 0,112 0,059 0,056 -13,405 -7,750 0,042 -15,000 -18,200 -2,420 -9,840 -25,700
phenol ng 0,008 0,010 -0,778 0,019 0,019 0,010 0,009 -2,103 -1,220 0,007 -2,360 -2,860 -0,381 -1,550 -4,040
TNO-MEP R 2000/119

propane g 0,040 0,030 -4,340 0,103 0,098 0,051 0,049 -11,731 -6,780 0,036 -13,100 -15,900 -2,120 -8,610 -22,500
propene g 0,002 0,001 -0,195 0,005 0,004 0,002 0,002 -0,526 -0,305 0,002 -0,590 -0,715 -0,095 -0,387 -1,010
propionicacid ng 0,199 0,200 -21,600 0,508 0,487 0,253 0,242 -57,926 -33,600 0,180 -64,900 -78,700 -10,500 -42,600 -111,000
Pt ng 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000
Sb ng 0,044 0,030 -4,790 0,113 0,108 0,056 0,054 -12,947 -7,480 0,040 -14,500 -17,500 -2,340 -9,500 -24,800
Sc ng 0,012 0,010 -1,330 0,031 0,030 0,015 0,015 -3,575 -2,070 0,011 -4,010 -4,860 -0,647 -2,630 -6,870
Se g 0,280 0,162 0,048 0,720 0,690 0,359 0,343 0,229 0,182 0,255 0,111 0,070 0,218 0,148 0,013
Sn g 3,630 2,040 1,510 6,570 6,450 3,230 3,080 4,012 2,780 2,310 3,210 3,300 2,350 2,800 3,870
SO2 mg 24,600 13,720 -13,410 51,100 50,700 20,200 18,700 -38,232 -15,600 18,000 -47,000 -61,500 6,480 -25,600 -93,100
SOx (as SO2) g -1,980 -2,020 -1,760 -4,420 -4,700 -2,320 -1,820 -2,276 -3,720 -3,670 -3,050 -2,700 -2,290 -2,460 -3,660
Sr ng 1,340 1,000 -145,800 3,400 3,260 1,700 1,620 -391,990 -227,000 1,210 -439,000 -532,000 -70,900 -288,000 -752,000
Th ng 0,074 0,100 -8,060 0,189 0,181 0,094 0,090 -21,717 -12,600 0,067 -24,300 -29,500 -3,930 -16,000 -41,700
Ti g 0,004 0,003 -0,395 0,009 0,009 0,005 0,004 -1,062 -0,616 0,003 -1,190 -1,440 -0,192 -0,782 -2,040
Tl ng 0,003 0,002 -0,326 0,008 0,007 0,004 0,004 -0,880 -0,509 0,003 -0,985 -1,190 -0,159 -0,647 -1,690
toluene g 0,740 0,427 -0,668 1,890 1,810 0,943 0,901 -1,542 -0,765 0,670 -2,110 -2,720 0,180 -1,190 -4,070
U ng 0,033 0,020 -3,520 0,082 0,079 0,041 0,039 -9,471 -5,490 0,029 -10,600 -12,900 -1,720 -6,970 -18,200
V g 0,022 0,010 -2,360 0,056 0,053 0,028 0,027 -6,335 -3,670 0,020 -7,100 -8,610 -1,150 -4,660 -12,200
vinylchloride ng 0,016 0,010 -1,067 0,042 0,040 0,021 0,020 -2,858 -1,650 0,015 -3,210 -3,890 -0,513 -2,100 -5,500
xylene g 0,820 0,470 -3,377 2,100 2,010 1,050 1,000 -8,829 -4,970 0,744 -10,300 -12,700 -1,100 -6,550 -18,100
Zn g 425,000 285,700 215,000 569,000 575,000 158,000 387,000 420,980 95,300 -68,200 178,000 211,000 108,000 146,000 455,000
Zr ng 0,002 0,001 -0,191 0,005 0,004 0,002 0,002 -0,514 -0,298 0,002 -0,576 -0,698 -0,093 -0,378 -0,987
Emissions to water
calcium compounds mg 0,002 0,001 -0,258 0,006 0,006 0,003 0,003 -0,696 -0,403 0,002 -0,780 -0,946 -0,126 -0,512 -1,340
CxHy mg 0,002 -21,100 -21,140 0,005 -6,530 -6,530 -6,530 -6,652 -25,300 -23,800 -13,300 -8,080 -6,620 -6,640 -25,500
CxHy aromatic mg -0,870 0,160 0,570 -2,540 -2,290 -14,800 -0,260 -6,860 -10,000 -15,100 -8,310 -7,410 -3,980 -6,120 0,965
CxHy chloro g -1,160 0,100 0,500 -3,140 -16,200 -28,700 -13,900 -20,520 -62,100 -64,300 -35,600 -24,000 -17,800 -19,900 -50,800
dichloroethane ng 0,014 0,010 -0,931 0,036 0,035 0,018 0,017 -2,501 -1,450 0,013 -2,800 -3,400 -0,449 -1,840 -4,810
methylenechloride ng 0,019 0,010 -1,988 0,047 0,045 0,024 0,023 -5,349 -3,100 0,017 -5,990 -7,270 -0,968 -3,940 -10,300
organics dissolved mg 0,000 -3,000 -3,000 0,000 -180,000 -180,000 -180,000 -180,000 -696,000 -655,000 -363,000 -219,000 -182,000 -181,000 -696,000
P2O5 g -134,000 -134,000 -134,000 -134,000 -516,000 -486,000 -269,000 -162,000 -135,000 -134,000 -516,000
tributyltin ng 0,067 -7,190 0,169 0,162 0,084 0,081 -19,356 -11,200 0,060 -21,700 -26,300 -3,500 -14,200 -37,200
unspecified emission mg -12,041 -12,081 -0,119 -0,119 -0,119 -0,119 -0,459 -0,432 -0,239 -0,144 -0,120 -0,119 -0,459
acid (as H+) mg 0,068 -8,500 -8,580 0,141 -3,740 -3,820 -3,830 -3,807 -14,900 -14,000 -7,730 -4,630 -3,860 -3,830 -14,900
91 of 127
 Routes for IW Routes for MSW
92 of 127
B1 B2 B3 A1 A2 A4 A4 A4 A5 A5 A5 A5 A5 A5 A5
NOW R50g R25y R35y R50y R35y HE R50y HE R10m
Substance Unit
Ag ng 0,010 0,010 -1,094 0,026 0,025 0,013 0,012 -2,954 -1,710 0,009 -3,310 -4,010 -0,534 -2,170 -5,670
Al g -0,132 -0,057 -0,031 -0,288 -0,274 -0,038 -1,320 -0,041 -0,052 -0,051 -0,062 -0,063 -1,210 -0,660 -0,057
alkanes g 0,002 0,001 -0,232 0,005 0,005 0,003 0,003 -0,625 -0,362 0,002 -0,700 -0,849 -0,113 -0,460 -1,200
alkenes ng 0,195 0,100 -21,100 0,498 0,477 0,248 0,237 -56,710 -32,900 0,176 -63,600 -77,100 -10,300 -41,700 -109,000
AOX g -3,210 1,200 2,800 -9,890 -8,810 -59,600 -0,696 -27,338 -39,700 -60,400 -32,700 -29,100 -15,300 -23,900 5,000
As mg -0,263 -0,114 -0,060 -0,577 -0,549 -0,090 -2,630 -0,087 -0,113 -0,116 -0,132 -0,132 -2,430 -1,330 -0,113
B g 0,004 0,002 -0,395 0,009 0,009 0,005 0,004 -1,061 -0,615 0,003 -1,190 -1,440 -0,192 -0,781 -2,040
Ba mg -12,800 -3,900 -0,700 -30,100 -28,200 -46,600 -106,000 -23,360 -33,600 -48,400 -29,300 -26,700 -109,000 -70,900 -1,660
barite g 0,384 0,300 -41,400 0,976 0,936 0,487 0,465 -111,730 -64,500 0,346 -125,000 -151,000 -20,100 -81,900 -214,000
Be ng 0,002 0,001 -0,161 0,004 0,004 0,002 0,002 -0,434 -0,252 0,001 -0,487 -0,590 -0,079 -0,320 -0,835
benzene g 0,002 0,001 -0,233 0,005 0,005 0,003 0,003 -0,627 -0,363 0,002 -0,702 -0,851 -0,113 -0,461 -1,200
BOD mg -0,036 -17,600 -17,600 -0,146 -16,200 -16,800 -16,100 -16,371 -62,600 -59,200 -32,700 -19,800 -16,400 -16,400 -62,100
Cd g -7,700 -2,600 -0,500 -14,400 -13,300 -18,000 -63,700 -7,498 -13,400 -20,100 -11,500 -10,300 -64,300 -39,000 0,953
chlorobenzene ng 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000
Cl g -1,280 -0,250 0,230 -1,450 -1,400 -8,540 -5,840 -3,352 -6,500 -9,770 -5,010 -4,270 -8,080 -6,540 0,648
CN g -7,100 -0,400 2,100 -18,700 -17,100 -66,800 -6,980 -30,919 -45,700 -68,700 -38,200 -34,200 -24,000 -31,100 3,860
cobalt g 0,004 0,003 -0,457 0,011 0,010 0,005 0,005 -1,229 -0,713 0,004 -1,380 -1,670 -0,223 -0,905 -2,360
COD mg 0,409 -128,000 -126,600 -1,120 -67,400 -78,700 -65,500 -70,807 -263,000 -253,000 -138,000 -83,500 -67,600 -68,700 -252,000
Cr mg -1,310 -0,570 -0,300 -2,890 -2,740 -0,532 -13,200 -0,475 -0,620 -0,660 -0,704 -0,699 -12,200 -6,680 -0,559
CrVI ng 0,006 0,003 -0,599 0,014 0,013 0,007 0,007 -1,614 -0,933 0,005 -1,810 -2,190 -0,292 -1,190 -3,100
Cs ng 0,016 0,010 -1,746 0,041 0,040 0,021 0,020 -4,705 -2,720 0,015 -5,270 -6,390 -0,851 -3,460 -9,030
Cu mg -0,650 -0,282 -0,150 -1,430 -1,360 -0,222 -6,580 -0,217 -0,280 -0,285 -0,327 -0,327 -6,070 -3,310 -0,282
DOC g -284,000 -135,000 -81,000 -566,000 -537,000 -118,000 -102,000 -131,970 -137,000 -129,000 -160,000 -161,000 -139,000 -150,000 -160,000
ethylbenzene ng 0,389 0,200 -42,000 0,991 0,950 0,494 0,472 -113,020 -65,400 0,351 -127,000 -153,000 -20,400 -83,100 -217,000
F g 13,600 7,800 5,300 30,700 29,300 14,900 14,200 16,671 12,000 10,900 13,000 12,900 10,600 11,700 14,600
F2 g -2,360 -6,362 -3,690 -7,110 -8,620 -1,160 -4,680 -12,200
Fe mg -144,000 -58,600 -28,000 -317,000 -300,000 -26,900 -401,000 -17,148 -46,400 -52,900 -54,500 -53,600 -405,000 -237,000 -35,200
formaldehyde ng 0,000 0,000 -0,013 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 -0,035 -0,020 0,000 -0,039 -0,048 -0,006 -0,026 -0,067
glutaraldehyde ng 0,048 0,020 -5,110 0,120 0,115 0,060 0,057 -13,734 -7,950 0,043 -15,400 -18,700 -2,490 -10,100 -26,400
H2S ng 0,090 0,100 -9,530 0,229 0,220 0,114 0,109 -25,694 -14,900 0,081 -28,800 -34,900 -4,650 -18,900 -49,400
Hg ng -207,000 -80,000 -33,900 -446,000 -421,000 -191,000 -18,900 -99,155 -167,000 -226,000 -161,000 -151,000 -113,000 -137,000 -43,300
HOCL g 0,020 0,020 -2,120 0,050 0,048 0,025 0,024 -5,691 -3,300 0,018 -6,380 -7,730 -1,030 -4,190 -10,900
I ng 1,620 -174,600 4,130 3,950 2,060 1,970 -470,530 -272,000 1,460 -527,000 -639,000 -85,100 -346,000 -904,000
K g 0,710 -77,300 1,800 1,730 0,899 0,859 -207,300 -120,000 0,639 -232,000 -282,000 -37,500 -153,000 -398,000
Kjeld N mg 0,049 0,276 0,372 -0,171 -0,103 -1,410 0,264 -0,521 -0,576 -1,170 -0,370 -0,272 0,143 -0,112 0,704
TNO-MEP R 2000/119
TNO-report

Appendices
 Routes for IW Routes for MSW
B1 B2 B3 A1 A2 A4 A4 A4 A5 A5 A5 A5 A5 A5 A5
TNO-report

NOW R50g R25y R35y R50y R35y HE R50y HE R10m Appendices

Substance Unit
metals undefined mg -19,800 -36,800 -31,000 -47,900 -50,100 -116,000 -142,000 -58,624 -98,200 -133,000 -76,800 -66,100 -158,000 -117,000 -19,700
Mg mg 0,002 0,001 -0,198 0,005 0,004 0,002 0,002 -0,530 -0,307 0,002 -0,595 -0,721 -0,096 -0,390 -1,020
TNO-MEP R 2000/119

Mn g 0,051 0,030 -5,540 0,130 0,124 0,065 0,062 -14,950 -8,640 0,046 -16,700 -20,300 -2,700 -11,000 -28,700
Mo g 0,007 -0,760 0,018 0,017 0,009 0,008 -2,037 -1,180 0,006 -2,280 -2,770 -0,369 -1,500 -3,910
N-total mg -0,300 1,330 1,980 -2,250 -1,830 -15,900 0,542 -6,745 -9,190 -15,100 -7,120 -6,080 -2,430 -4,750 3,590
Na mg 1,030 -0,400 2,160 -39,300 -40,600 -40,700 -42,503 -160,000 -150,000 -84,700 -52,100 -41,500 -42,200 -163,000
NH3 g -1,094 -2,944 -1,710 -3,300 -4,000 -0,540 -2,170 -5,650
NH4 mg -1,460 0,060 0,990 -4,830 -4,300 -16,400 -0,574 -7,013 -9,800 -15,900 -7,690 -6,600 -3,810 -5,730 3,290
Ni mg -0,640 -0,278 -0,150 -1,410 -1,340 -0,244 -6,640 -0,228 -0,292 -0,305 -0,336 -0,335 -6,120 -3,340 -0,279
nitrate mg -3,070 -2,110 -1,260 -7,130 -6,720 -11,200 -0,486 -5,152 -8,190 -12,000 -6,950 -6,220 -3,990 -5,430 0,120
oil mg -26,500 6,000 18,000 -78,500 -70,500 -461,000 -7,880 -212,600 -311,000 -469,000 -258,000 -230,000 -123,000 -190,000 30,800
oil crude mg 0,001 -16,700 -16,810 0,004 -2,860 -2,870 -2,870 -3,015 -11,200 -10,400 -5,930 -3,680 -2,920 -2,980 -11,400
P-total ng 0,004 0,002 -0,424 0,010 0,010 0,005 0,005 -1,140 -0,661 0,004 -1,280 -1,550 -0,207 -0,839 -2,190
PAH g -12,800 3,000 8,800 -38,000 -34,100 -227,000 -3,840 -104,532 -153,000 -231,000 -127,000 -113,000 -60,700 -93,500 15,100
Pb mg -0,760 -0,327 -0,170 -1,680 -1,590 -0,215 -6,610 -0,211 -0,296 -0,301 -0,351 -0,352 -6,120 -3,350 -0,301
phenol mg -0,151 0,020 0,084 -0,431 -0,390 -2,510 -0,060 -1,166 -1,710 -2,570 -1,420 -1,270 -0,699 -1,060 0,139
phosphate mg -7,700 -4,650 -3,100 -17,100 -16,300 -2,530 -78,900 -2,570 -3,450 -3,440 -3,920 -3,890 -72,700 -39,600 -3,610
S ng 0,500 0,200 -54,200 1,280 1,230 0,638 0,610 -145,920 -84,400 0,453 -163,000 -198,000 -26,400 -107,000 -280,000
salts mg 0,006 0,010 -0,659 0,016 0,015 0,008 0,007 -1,774 -1,030 0,006 -1,990 -2,410 -0,321 -1,310 -3,410
Sb ng 0,034 0,020 -3,720 0,087 0,083 0,043 0,042 -10,000 -5,790 0,031 -11,200 -13,600 -1,810 -7,350 -19,200
Se g 0,011 0,010 -1,170 0,027 0,026 0,014 0,013 -3,142 -1,820 0,010 -3,520 -4,260 -0,568 -2,310 -6,030
Si ng 0,009 -0,989 0,023 0,022 0,012 0,011 -2,648 -1,530 0,008 -2,970 -3,600 -0,480 -1,950 -5,090
Sn ng 46,800 26,500 16,400 85,200 83,700 41,900 40,000 43,594 31,100 29,900 32,100 31,400 28,900 30,000 34,000
solids anorg dissolved g -1,050 -0,190 0,120 -2,600 -2,410 -6,800 -4,080 -3,206 -4,730 -7,030 -4,000 -3,590 -5,530 -4,820 0,233
solids dissolved mg 0,019 -31,500 -32,400 0,043 -13,200 -13,200 -13,200 -15,632 -52,300 -47,900 -29,200 -19,300 -13,700 -15,000 -55,600
solids suspended g -0,093 -0,050 -0,016 -0,243 -0,245 -1,020 -0,059 -0,489 -0,770 -1,100 -0,616 -0,538 -0,314 -0,452 -0,037
Sr g 0,123 0,100 -13,290 0,314 0,301 0,156 0,150 -35,851 -20,800 0,111 -40,100 -48,700 -6,480 -26,400 -68,800
sulphate g -1,280 -0,517 -0,250 -2,800 -2,660 -0,457 -5,820 -0,296 -0,573 -0,677 -0,616 -0,593 -5,650 -3,230 -0,371
sulphide g -33,200 6,000 21,000 -95,800 -86,300 -533,000 -9,480 -245,990 -360,000 -543,000 -298,000 -266,000 -143,000 -220,000 36,700
sulphite ng 0,950 -103,400 2,420 2,320 1,210 1,150 -278,970 -161,000 0,857 -312,000 -379,000 -50,500 -205,000 -535,000
Ti g 0,126 0,100 -13,690 0,321 0,307 0,160 0,153 -36,967 -21,400 0,114 -41,400 -50,200 -6,690 -27,200 -71,000
TOC mg -26,400 -6,400 1,300 -60,900 -56,400 -141,000 -8,230 -70,009 -97,600 -143,000 -83,500 -75,500 -43,100 -63,200 1,000
toluene mg -0,119 0,020 0,080 -0,349 -0,314 -2,060 -0,008 -0,952 -1,390 -2,100 -1,150 -1,030 -0,528 -0,837 0,136
trichloroethene ng 0,002 0,002 -0,159 0,006 0,006 0,003 0,003 -0,428 -0,248 0,002 -0,480 -0,582 -0,077 -0,315 -0,824
V g 0,011 0,010 -1,242 0,029 0,028 0,015 0,014 -3,345 -1,940 0,010 -3,750 -4,540 -0,606 -2,460 -6,430
93 of 127
 Routes for IW Routes for MSW
94 of 127
B1 B2 B3 A1 A2 A4 A4 A4 A5 A5 A5 A5 A5 A5 A5
NOW R50g R25y R35y R50y R35y HE R50y HE R10m
Substance Unit
W ng 0,023 0,010 -2,490 0,058 0,056 0,029 0,028 -6,710 -3,890 0,021 -7,520 -9,120 -1,220 -4,940 -12,900
xylene ng 1,560 1,000 -167,800 3,970 3,800 1,980 1,890 -452,790 -262,000 1,410 -507,000 -614,000 -81,900 -333,000 -869,000
Zn mg -1,320 -0,567 -0,300 -2,900 -2,760 -0,535 -13,300 -0,475 -0,623 -0,666 -0,707 -0,702 -12,300 -6,710 -0,558
Waste to deposit
chemical waste g 5,100 2,820 2,150 10,400 10,400 4,090 3,780 5,305 4,430 3,670 5,120 5,260 3,730 4,450 6,170
chemical waste (inert) mg -423,000 -423,100 -83,900 -83,900 -83,900 -83,900 -324,000 -305,000 -169,000 -102,000 -84,700 -84,200 -324,000
final waste (inert) mg 0,550 0,400 -60,300 1,420 1,360 0,707 0,676 -162,660 -94,100 0,502 -182,000 -221,000 -29,400 -119,000 -312,000
high active nuclear waste mm3 0,000 -0,044 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 -0,119 -0,069 0,000 -0,133 -0,161 -0,022 -0,088 -0,228
industrial waste mg -442,000 -442,700 -97,300 -97,300 -97,300 -97,300 -376,000 -354,000 -196,000 -118,000 -98,200 -97,600 -376,000
low&med. act. nucl. waste mm3 0,001 -0,150 0,003 0,003 0,002 0,001 -0,405 -0,234 0,001 -0,453 -0,550 -0,073 -0,298 -0,777
mineral waste g -2,570 -2,572 -0,978 -0,978 -0,978 -0,978 -3,780 -3,550 -1,970 -1,190 -0,987 -0,980 -3,780
process waste (not inert) g 0,238 0,136 -0,517 0,595 0,572 0,293 0,279 -1,320 -0,722 0,211 -1,590 -1,980 -0,095 -0,984 -2,870
slag mg -128,000 -128,000 -128,000 -128,000 -496,000 -467,000 -258,000 -156,000 -130,000 -129,000 -496,000
slags/ash g -0,900 -0,900 -0,160 -0,160 -0,160 -0,160 -0,620 -0,583 -0,323 -0,195 -0,162 -0,161 -0,620
chemical waste (regulated) mg -8,800 -8,800 -18,500 -18,500 -18,500 -18,500 -71,600 -67,300 -37,300 -22,500 -18,700 -18,600 -71,600
waste limestone g 0,080 0,050 0,270 5,300 5,290 3,120 3,020 3,762 2,270 1,880 2,600 2,680 1,900 2,260 3,160
bottom ash g 11,600 6,700 5,200 26,400 26,000 12,100 11,400 15,216 11,200 9,280 12,900 13,300 9,430 11,300 15,600
fly ash inc.(H) g 1,150 0,660 0,660 5,770 5,760 3,400 3,290 4,095 2,470 2,050 2,830 2,910 2,070 2,470 3,440
FGCR (H) g 1,700 0,900 2,800 47,500 47,500 27,600 26,700 33,390 20,400 16,900 23,300 24,000 17,000 20,300 28,300
TNO-MEP R 2000/119
TNO-report

Appendices
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 95 of 127

Appendices

B.3.2 Costs and environmental impacts of routes

Environmental impacts of routes are calculated on the basis of emitted substances

(appendix B3.1) and impact assesment factors (table B2). Table B3.2 gives an
overview including the costs of routes.
Table B3.2 Costs and environmental impacts per route
96 of 127

ROUTES FOR IW ROUTES FOR MSW

B1 B1 B2 B2 B3 A1 A1 A2 A2 A4 A4 A4 A5 A5 A5 A5 A5 A5 A5
L L L L NOW R50g R25y R35y R50y R35y R50y R10m
HE HE
COSTS
Euro 0,055 0,043 0,030 0,023 0,012 0,169 0,131 0,174 0,138 0,519 0,396 0,506 0,719 0,718 0,738 0,742 0,683 0,714 0,725

IMPACT Unit
EDP y-1 E15 -5,40E-02 2,06E-03 -5,38E-02-2,16E-02 -4,20E-02 -1,22E-01 1,73E-03 -1,23E-01-4,19E-03 -7,33E-02 -1,27E-02 -3,98E-02 -8,72E-02 -1,07E-01 -6,86E-02 -5,85E-02 -4,45E-02 -5,24E-02 -4,17E-02
ADP y-1 E15 7,40E-07 0,00E+00 -7,00E-07-1,20E-06 -2,15E-05 1,87E-06 0,00E+00 1,49E-06-3,07E-07 6,26E-07 5,85E-07 -5,48E-05 -3,27E-05 -4,54E-07 -6,20E-05 -7,49E-05 -9,83E-06 -4,04E-05 -1,07E-04
Ener GJ -7,00E-03 4,99E-04 -1,25E-02-8,29E-03 -1,15E-02 -1,58E-02 4,20E-04 -1,73E-02-1,69E-03 -1,87E-02 -1,81E-02 -1,19E-02 -2,26E-02 -2,65E-02 -1,74E-02 -1,49E-02 -2,24E-02 -1,91E-02 -1,31E-02
GWP Kg CO2 5,20E-01 1,19E-01 1,26E-01-1,09E-01 -3,00E-02 1,25E+00 2,17E-01 1,15E+00 1,59E-01 6,92E-01 7,12E-01 6,50E-01 2,46E-01 2,69E-01 3,06E-01 3,14E-01 4,06E-01 3,65E-01 2,14E-01
ODP kg CFC11 -7,50E-08 4,26E-08 1,70E-08 8,41E-08 5,20E-08 -2,21E-07 3,57E-08 -1,99E-07 4,89E-08 -1,33E-06 1,88E-09 -6,13E-07 -8,96E-07 -1,35E-06 -7,42E-07 -6,62E-07 -3,34E-07 -5,36E-07 8,88E-08
POCP kg C2H4 5,00E-06 1,25E-04 -7,70E-04-7,06E-04 -7,42E-04 -1,17E-04 1,51E-04 -4,44E-04-1,87E-04 -1,35E-03 -3,24E-04 -7,92E-04 -1,94E-03 -2,23E-03 -1,16E-03 -8,11E-04 -4,98E-04 -6,47E-04 -1,15E-03
AP Kg SO2 -2,04E-03 5,43E-04 -2,41E-03-9,38E-04 -2,22E-03 -4,91E-03 4,87E-04 -5,35E-03-1,62E-04 -2,35E-03 -1,80E-03 -2,92E-03 -4,31E-03 -3,91E-03 -3,41E-03 -2,98E-03 -1,78E-03 -2,30E-03 -4,93E-03
NP Kg P -1,90E-05 9,16E-05 -8,00E-05-1,73E-05 -8,80E-05 -1,58E-04 8,34E-05 -1,89E-04 4,35E-05 -5,15E-05 -1,42E-04 -1,54E-04 -1,39E-04 -7,95E-05 -9,05E-05 -7,15E-05 -2,99E-05 -4,50E-05 -2,50E-04
FW Kg FW 1,19E-04 2,68E-01 -2,56E-03 1,51E-01 -2,95E-03 2,99E-04 6,82E-01 -5,23E-04 6,53E-01 -6,64E-04 -6,70E-04 -1,64E-03 -3,59E-03 -2,84E-03 -2,61E-03 -2,19E-03 -8,95E-04 -1,42E-03 -4,88E-03
TW Kg TW 2,90E-03 1,30E-04 1,20E-03-3,60E-04 3,10E-03 5,33E-02 7,88E-03 5,31E-02 7,77E-03 3,09E-02 2,99E-02 3,74E-02 2,24E-02 1,86E-02 2,59E-02 2,68E-02 1,90E-02 2,27E-02 3,14E-02
AETP Kg 14 dich-8,50E+00 1,11E-01 -3,71E+001,19E+00 -2,10E+00-1,82E+01 9,83E-02 -1,73E+01 3,39E-01 -6,77E+00-5,54E+01-5,33E+00-6,49E+00-7,45E+00-6,88E+00-6,76E+00-5,25E+01-3,07E+01-4,59E+00
HTP Kg 14 dich-3,65E-02 5,38E-03 -1,03E-02 1,36E-02 1,50E-03 -3,81E-02 4,72E-03 -3,20E-02 6,98E-03 -7,20E-02 -5,90E-02 -1,72E-02 -5,03E-02 -8,56E-02 -3,89E-02 -3,27E-02 -8,79E-02 -6,47E-02 2,58E-02
TNO-MEP R 2000/119
TNO-report

Appendices
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 97 of 127

Appendices

B.4 Calculated results of scenarios by addition of routes

This study includes a comparison of environmental consequences of recycling

scenarios, wich are built up by combination of routes. Each scenario is constructed
from at least two routes.
A- route for processing 0.718 kg MSW plastic
B- route for processing 0.282 kg IW plastic

Most scenarios in this study are combinations of several A-routes and several B-
routes. In this context routes can be mixed in wich a total of 100 % B routes and
100 % A routes is applied. Table B4.1a gives an addition of A routes per scenario
and table B4.1b an addition of B-routes per scenario. With the help of these addi-
tion tables amounts of substances and environmental impacts per scenario can be
calculated from the overview per route as reported in appendix B3. Table B4.2
gives an overview of the amounts of substances per scenario; table B4.3 gives an
overview of the resulting environmental impacts and costs per scenario.

Example
calculation GWP score for scenario R25y.

From table B4.1a

71.7% route A1 GWPA1 = 0.717 * 1.25 (Tab.B3.2) = 0.896 GJ
28.3% route A5 R25y GWPA5 = 0.218 * 0.269 (Tab.B3.2) = 0.059 GJ
100 % route A

From table B4.1b

100 % route B2 GWPB2 = 1.0 * 0.126 (Tab.B3.2) = 0.126 GJ
100 % route B

Total GWP score for scenario R25y (presented in table B4.3) 1.081 GJ
Table B4.1a Addition table for scenarios including MSW routes
98 of 127

ROUTE A1 ROUTE A2 ROUTE A4 ROUTE A5

A1 A1 A2 A2 A4 A4 A4 A4 A5 A5 A5 A5 A5 A5 A5
SCENARIO L L R35g R50g NOW R25y R35y R50y R35y HE R50y HE R10m

Landf 100,0%
NOW 56,0% 5,75% 20,0% 5,75% 12,5%
R15 100,0%
R25y 71,7% 28,3%
R35y 50,5% 49,5%
R50y 17,8% 82,2%
R25g 69,4% 30,6%
R35g 38,8% 61,2%
R50g 100%
R35y HE 100,0%
R50y HE 100,0%
R10i 100,0%
R10m 82,8% 17,2%
TNO-MEP R 2000/119
TNO-report

Appendices
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 99 of 127

Appendices

Table B4.1b Addition table for scenarios including IW routes

SCENARIO ROUTE B1 ROUTE B2 ROUTE B3

B1 B1L B2 B2L B3

Landf 100.0%
NOW 31.0% 24.0% 45.0%
R15 100.0%
R25y 100.0%
R35y 100.0%
R50y 100.0%
R25g 100.0%
R35g 100.0%
R50g 65.7% 34.3%
R35yHE 100.0%
R50yHE 100.0%
R10i 17.7% 82.3%
R10m 82.8% 17.2%
Table B.4.2a Substances overview per scenario of scenarios including MSWI
100 of 127

SCENARIO NOW R15 R25y R35y R50y R25g R35g R50g R35y R50y R10i R10m
(MSWI HE HE
Substance Unit part)

Resources
clay minerals g -1,56E+00 -3,10E-03 -3,11E-03 -1,19E+01 -5,94E+00 -1,19E+01 -2,38E+01 -1,19E+01 -2,38E+01 -2,35E-03 -7,07E+00
Ferromanganese g -7,99E+00 -1,34E+01 -1,38E+01 -1,33E+01 -1,34E+01 -1,34E+01 -1,34E+01 -1,35E+01 -1,34E+01 -8,88E+00
lubricant g 7,03E+01 4,85E+02 3,98E+02 3,64E+02 4,42E+02 3,99E+02 3,53E+02 1,97E+02 2,31E+02 4,87E+02 4,55E+02
E
lubricating oil mg 7,03 +00 4,85E+01 3,98E+01 3,64E+01 4,42E+01 3,99E+01 3,53E+01 1,97E+01 2,31E+01 4,87E+01 4,55E+01
marl kg -4,41E-02 1,59E-07 1,40E-07 -3,37E-01 -1,68E-01 -3,37E-01 -6,74E-01 -3,37E-01 -6,73E-01 1,68E-07 -2,01E-01
sand mg -2,82E+00 -4,71E+00 -4,86E+00 -4,69E+00 -4,71E+00 -4,72E+00 -4,72E+00 -4,76E+00 -4,73E+00 1,36E-02 -3,12E+00
zeolite g -4,50E-01 6,58E-02 5,79E-02 -3,47E+00 -7,05E+00 -1,70E+00 -3,46E+00 -7,01E+00 -3,50E+00 -7,01E+00 6,97E-02 -2,02E+00
ashes from steel prod. g -2,46E+00 -1,88E+01 -3,77E+01 -9,36E+00 -1,87E+01 -3,75E+01 -1,88E+01 -3,75E+01 -1,12E+01
furnace slag g -2,98E+00 -2,27E+01 -4,57E+01 -1,14E+01 -2,27E+01 -4,55E+01 -2,28E+01 -4,54E+01 -1,35E+01
gypsum g -1,36E+00 -1,04E+01 -2,10E+01 -5,20E+00 -1,04E+01 -2,09E+01 -1,04E+01 -2,08E+01 -6,21E+00
pyrites ash g -5,19E-01 -3,96E+00 -7,97E+00 -1,98E+00 -3,96E+00 -7,93E+00 -3,97E+00 -7,92E+00 -2,36E+00
slate g -1,30E+00 -9,90E+00 -1,99E+01 -4,96E+00 -9,91E+00 -1,98E+01 -9,92E+00 -1,98E+01 -5,90E+00
Fe (ore) mg -1,36E+01 -3,96E+01 -3,99E+01 -3,96E+01 -3,96E+01 -3,96E+01 -3,97E+01 -3,97E+01 -3,99E+01 -3,98E+01 -2,31E+01 -1,21E+01
Mn (ore) mg -3,99E-01 -6,69E-01 -6,88E-01 -6,63E-01 -6,67E-01 -6,69E-01 -6,69E-01 -6,69E-01 -6,75E-01 -6,70E-01 -4,44E-01
Ag from ore ng -1,97E+01 2,88E+00 2,54E+00 -1,52E+02 -3,09E+02 -7,45E+01 -1,52E+02 -3,07E+02 -1,53E+02 -3,07E+02 3,05E+00 -8,87E+01
barite from ore mg -4,07E-02 5,93E-03 5,23E-03 -3,13E-01 -6,36E-01 -1,53E-01 -3,13E-01 -6,32E-01 -3,16E-01 -6,33E-01 6,29E-03 -1,83E-01
Co from ore ng -9,77E-04 1,43E-04 1,26E-04 -7,50E-03 -1,53E-02 -3,70E-03 -7,53E-03 -1,52E-02 -7,58E-03 -1,52E-02 1,52E-04 -4,38E-03
Cr from ore g -2,01E+00 2,95E-01 2,59E-01 -1,55E+01 -3,15E+01 -7,60E+00 -1,55E+01 -3,13E+01 -1,56E+01 -3,13E+01 3,12E-01 -9,05E+00
crude oil 42 mg -9,33E+00 -7,13E+01 -1,43E+02 -3,55E+01 -7,10E+01 -1,42E+02 -7,13E+01 -1,42E+02 -4,23E+01
crude oil ETH 42.6 g -3,16E+01 -4,80E+01 -1,38E+02 -1,21E+02 -1,49E+02 -8,50E+01 -1,22E+02 -1,53E+02 -7,96E+01 -1,30E+02 -5,81E+01 -5,98E+01
Cu from ore g -3,25E+00 5,74E-01 5,05E-01 -2,50E+01 -5,09E+01 -1,22E+01 -2,50E+01 -5,06E+01 -2,53E+01 -5,07E+01 6,08E-01 -1,46E+01
energy from coal kJ -1,47E+02 -4,36E+02 -4,40E+02 -4,36E+02 -4,36E+02 -4,36E+02 -4,37E+02 -4,37E+02 -4,39E+02 -4,38E+02 -2,60E+02 -1,30E+02
Energy from hydro
power MJ -1,31E-01 -1,16E+00 -9,77E-01 -8,03E-01 -5,28E-01 -8,86E-01 -6,12E-01 -2,30E-01 -2,86E-01 -2,85E-01 -1,23E+00 -1,21E+00
energy from nat gas MJ -1,70E+00 -5,48E+00 -5,51E+00 -5,47E+00 -5,48E+00 -5,48E+00 -5,48E+00 -5,48E+00 -5,49E+00 -5,48E+00 -3,63E+00 -1,46E+00
energy from oil MJ -1,97E+00 -6,42E+00 -6,46E+00 -6,41E+00 -6,42E+00 -6,42E+00 -6,42E+00 -6,42E+00 -6,43E+00 -6,43E+00 -4,30E+00 -1,69E+00
energy from uranium kJ -7,94E+01 -2,32E+02 -2,34E+02 -2,32E+02 -2,33E+02 -2,32E+02 -2,33E+02 -2,33E+02 -2,34E+02 -2,34E+02 -1,36E+02 -6,87E+01
energy unspecified MJ -9,99E-02 -2,01E-02 -2,08E-02 -7,30E-01 -1,45E+00 -3,75E-01 -7,30E-01 -1,44E+00 -7,34E-01 -1,44E+00 -1,17E-02 -4,25E-01
Fe from ore mg -3,03E-01 4,89E-02 4,31E-02 -2,34E+00 -4,75E+00 -1,14E+00 -2,34E+00 -4,73E+00 -2,36E+00 -4,73E+00 5,18E-02 -1,36E+00
TNO-MEP R 2000/119
TNO-report

Appendices
 SCENARIO NOW R15 R25y R35y R50y R25g R35g R50g R35y R50y R10i R10m
(MSWI HE HE
TNO-report

Appendices
Substance Unit part)

gas from oil (v) 40.9 cm3 -3,26E-01 4,75E-02 4,18E-02 -2,50E+00 -5,09E+00 -1,23E+00 -2,50E+00 -5,06E+00 -2,53E+00 -5,06E+00 5,03E-02 -1,46E+00
gas meth (w) 35.9 mg -1,96E-01 2,83E-02 2,49E-02 -1,50E+00 -3,06E+00 -7,39E-01 -1,51E+00 -3,04E+00 -1,52E+00 -3,04E+00 3,00E-02 -8,79E-01
TNO-MEP R 2000/119

gas nat (feed)(v) 35 cm3 1,30E+01 8,16E+01 7,10E+01 6,65E+01 5,62E+01 7,37E+01 6,59E+01 5,51E+01 3,67E+01 4,13E+01 8,53E+01 8,90E+01
gas nat (v) 32 l -2,96E-01 1,44E-01 1,27E-01 -2,32E+00 -4,80E+00 -1,08E+00 -2,31E+00 -4,77E+00 -2,37E+00 -4,79E+00 1,53E-01 -1,29E+00
gas nat (v) 37 cm3 3,40E+00 2,12E+01 1,85E+01 1,73E+01 1,46E+01 1,92E+01 1,72E+01 1,44E+01 9,56E+00 1,07E+01 2,22E+01 2,31E+01
gas nat (v) ETH 35 l -8,00E+00 -4,97E+01 -4,74E+01 -4,12E+01 -3,32E+01 -4,28E+01 -3,59E+01 -2,51E+01 -2,55E+01 -2,58E+01 -5,42E+01 -5,62E+01
Mn from ore g -3,63E-01 5,38E-02 4,74E-02 -2,79E+00 -5,67E+00 -1,37E+00 -2,79E+00 -5,63E+00 -2,81E+00 -5,64E+00 5,70E-02 -1,63E+00
Mo from ore ng -3,70E-04 5,49E-05 4,83E-05 -2,85E-03 -5,79E-03 -1,40E-03 -2,85E-03 -5,76E-03 -2,87E-03 -5,76E-03 5,82E-05 -1,66E-03
Ni from ore g -1,42E+00 2,07E-01 1,82E-01 -1,09E+01 -2,22E+01 -5,36E+00 -1,09E+01 -2,21E+01 -1,10E+01 -2,21E+01 2,19E-01 -6,39E+00
Pd from ore ng -2,91E+01 2,91E+01 2,56E+01 -2,34E+02 -4,98E+02 -1,02E+02 -2,33E+02 -4,94E+02 -2,44E+02 -5,00E+02 3,08E+01 -1,21E+02
Pt from ore ng -3,93E-05 5,99E-06 5,27E-06 -3,03E-04 -6,15E-04 -1,49E-04 -3,03E-04 -6,12E-04 -3,06E-04 -6,13E-04 6,35E-06 -1,76E-04
raw bauxite mg -1,49E+01 -4,92E+01 -4,94E+01 -4,93E+01 -4,95E+01 -4,93E+01 -4,93E+01 -4,95E+01 -4,94E+01 -4,95E+01 -3,33E+01 -1,28E+01
raw bentonite mg -4,28E-02 6,27E-03 5,52E-03 -3,29E-01 -6,68E-01 -1,61E-01 -3,29E-01 -6,64E-01 -3,32E-01 -6,65E-01 6,65E-03 -1,92E-01
raw coal 29.3 g -2,29E-02 1,13E+00 9,93E-01 -6,17E-01 -2,33E+00 2,58E-01 -6,14E-01 -2,30E+00 -1,04E+00 -2,51E+00 1,20E+00 3,15E-01
raw coal ETH 18 g -6,99E+01 -2,05E+02 -1,72E+02 -1,45E+02 -9,92E+01 -1,61E+02 -1,17E+02 -5,62E+01 -7,82E+02 -4,34E+02 -2,22E+02 -2,27E+02
raw lignite ETH 8 g -1,64E+01 -1,62E+02 -1,35E+02 -1,09E+02 -6,85E+01 -1,21E+02 -8,08E+01 -2,40E+01 -3,64E+01 -3,47E+01 -1,76E+02 -1,79E+02
raw limestone g 7,76E+00 5,38E+01 4,41E+01 4,03E+01 3,21E+01 4,90E+01 4,42E+01 3,91E+01 2,18E+01 2,55E+01 5,40E+01 5,05E+01
raw phosfate mg -2,40E-01 -4,01E-01 -4,13E-01 -3,99E-01 -4,00E-01 -4,01E-01 -4,01E-01 -4,01E-01 -4,05E-01 -4,02E-01 -2,67E-01
rhenium ng -8,84E-06 1,44E-06 1,27E-06 -6,81E-05 -1,39E-04 -3,33E-05 -6,80E-05 -1,38E-04 -6,88E-05 -1,38E-04 1,53E-06 -3,97E-05
rhodium ng -1,32E-05 2,14E-06 1,89E-06 -1,01E-04 -2,06E-04 -4,96E-05 -1,01E-04 -2,05E-04 -1,02E-04 -2,05E-04 2,27E-06 -5,90E-05
rock salt g -2,04E+00 -3,60E+00 -3,76E+00 -3,66E+00 -3,72E+00 -3,65E+00 -3,69E+00 -3,76E+00 -3,85E+00 -3,81E+00 -2,76E-01 -1,82E+00
Sn from ore ng -1,10E+01 1,60E+00 1,41E+00 -8,48E+01 -1,72E+02 -4,14E+01 -8,44E+01 -1,71E+02 -8,52E+01 -1,71E+02 1,70E+00 -4,94E+01
U from ore 1.1E3 mg -1,25E+00 -9,55E+00 -1,92E+01 -4,77E+00 -9,55E+00 -1,91E+01 -9,54E+00 -1,91E+01 -5,68E+00
U from ore 451E3 mg -1,56E+00 -1,63E+01 -1,34E+01 -1,08E+01 -6,62E+00 -1,21E+01 -7,93E+00 -2,09E+00 -2,95E+00 -2,93E+00 -1,78E+01 -1,81E+01
water kg -8,32E-01 -2,53E+00 -2,56E+00 -2,57E+00 -2,62E+00 -2,55E+00 -2,57E+00 -2,61E+00 -2,58E+00 -2,62E+00 -1,59E+00 -7,56E-01
water process mm3 2,07E+01 1,30E+02 1,13E+02 1,06E+02 8,94E+01 1,17E+02 1,05E+02 8,75E+01 5,84E+01 6,56E+01 1,36E+02 1,41E+02
wood 16 g -6,72E-01 -1,99E+00 -1,68E+00 -1,41E+00 -9,64E-01 -1,56E+00 -1,14E+00 -5,43E-01 -7,49E+00 -4,16E+00 -2,16E+00 -2,21E+00
Zn from ore ng -1,38E+01 2,01E+00 1,77E+00 -1,06E+02 -2,15E+02 -5,18E+01 -1,06E+02 -2,14E+02 -1,07E+02 -2,14E+02 2,13E+00 -6,19E+01

Emissions to air
CxHy aromatic mg -1,22E+00 -6,49E+00 -7,37E+00 -6,21E+00 -5,42E+00 -5,91E+00 -5,34E+00 -4,12E+00 -2,94E+00 -3,91E+00 -7,18E+00 -7,33E+00
CxHy chloro mg -1,36E+00 -2,27E+00 -2,34E+00 -2,26E+00 -2,27E+00 -2,27E+00 -2,27E+00 -2,27E+00 -2,29E+00 -2,28E+00 -4,64E-04 -1,51E+00
101 of 127
 SCENARIO NOW R15 R25y R35y R50y R25g R35g R50g R35y R50y R10i R10m
HE HE 102 of 127
(MSWI
Substance Unit part)

dust coarse mg -1,74E-01 2,55E-02 2,25E-02 -1,34E+00 -2,72E+00 -6,56E-01 -1,34E+00 -2,70E+00 -1,35E+00 -2,71E+00 2,70E-02 -7,82E-01
ethyne ng -1,95E+00 2,87E-01 2,53E-01 -1,50E+01 -3,04E+01 -7,36E+00 -1,50E+01 -3,03E+01 -1,51E+01 -3,03E+01 3,04E-01 -8,75E+00
silicates g -4,35E+00 6,30E-01 5,55E-01 -3,35E+01 -6,79E+01 -1,64E+01 -3,34E+01 -6,76E+01 -3,38E+01 -6,76E+01 6,68E-01 -1,95E+01
unspecified emission mg -7,51E+01 -1,26E+02 -1,29E+02 -1,25E+02 -1,25E+02 -1,26E+02 -1,26E+02 -1,26E+02 -1,27E+02 -1,26E+02 1,70E-01 -8,32E+01
12 dichloroethane ng -3,52E-01 8,61E-02 7,58E-02 -2,73E+00 -5,57E+00 -1,32E+00 -2,72E+00 -5,53E+00 -2,76E+00 -5,54E+00 9,12E-02 -1,57E+00
acetaldehyde g -5,35E-02 7,81E-03 6,88E-03 -4,13E-01 -8,37E-01 -2,02E-01 -4,12E-01 -8,32E-01 -4,16E-01 -8,33E-01 8,28E-03 -2,40E-01
aceticacid g -2,45E-01 3,58E-02 3,15E-02 -1,89E+00 -3,83E+00 -9,24E-01 -1,88E+00 -3,81E+00 -1,90E+00 -3,81E+00 3,79E-02 -1,10E+00
acetone g -5,33E-02 7,78E-03 6,85E-03 -4,11E-01 -8,37E-01 -2,01E-01 -4,10E-01 -8,27E-01 -4,14E-01 -8,29E-01 8,24E-03 -2,40E-01
acroleine ng -9,54E-03 1,75E-03 1,54E-03 -7,33E-02 -1,49E-01 -3,58E-02 -7,34E-02 -1,49E-01 -7,43E-02 -1,49E-01 1,85E-03 -4,27E-02
aerosols mg 1,26E+01 7,84E+01 6,90E+01 6,45E+01 5,46E+01 7,11E+01 6,37E+01 5,36E+01 3,57E+01 4,01E+01 8,29E+01 8,65E+01
Al g -1,71E+00 2,48E-01 2,18E-01 -1,32E+01 -2,68E+01 -6,47E+00 -1,32E+01 -2,66E+01 -1,33E+01 -2,67E+01 2,62E-01 -7,71E+00
aldehydes g -5,77E-01 1,13E+01 9,96E+00 -8,99E+00 -2,90E+01 1,14E+00 -9,02E+00 -2,87E+01 -1,32E+01 -3,08E+01 1,20E+01 1,47E+00
alkanes g -4,96E-01 7,23E-02 6,36E-02 -3,82E+00 -7,75E+00 -1,87E+00 -3,82E+00 -7,71E+00 -3,85E+00 -7,72E+00 7,66E-02 -2,23E+00
alkenes g -1,69E-01 2,44E-02 2,15E-02 -1,30E+00 -2,63E+00 -6,35E-01 -1,29E+00 -2,62E+00 -1,31E+00 -2,62E+00 2,59E-02 -7,57E-01
As ng 5,00E+01 3,49E+02 3,07E+02 2,41E+02 1,50E+02 2,95E+02 2,42E+02 1,55E+02 1,13E+02 8,81E+01 3,69E+02 3,53E+02
B g -1,28E+00 1,88E-01 1,66E-01 -9,90E+00 -2,01E+01 -4,86E+00 -9,90E+00 -2,00E+01 -1,00E+01 -2,00E+01 2,00E-01 -5,79E+00
Ba ng -2,33E+01 3,38E+00 2,98E+00 -1,79E+02 -3,64E+02 -8,79E+01 -1,79E+02 -3,62E+02 -1,81E+02 -3,62E+02 3,58E+00 -1,05E+02
Be ng -2,33E-01 3,37E-02 2,97E-02 -1,80E+00 -3,65E+00 -8,79E-01 -1,79E+00 -3,62E+00 -1,81E+00 -3,63E+00 3,57E-02 -1,05E+00
benzaldehyde ng -3,27E-03 6,00E-04 5,28E-04 -2,53E-02 -5,14E-02 -1,23E-02 -2,52E-02 -5,11E-02 -2,55E-02 -5,12E-02 6,36E-04 -1,47E-02
benzene mg 7,61E-01 1,58E+00 1,64E+00 2,73E+00 3,87E+00 1,71E+00 1,84E+00 2,24E+00 5,40E+00 5,12E+00 9,36E-01 9,55E-01
benzo-a-pyrene ng 8,14E+00 5,10E+01 4,49E+01 4,16E+01 3,46E+01 4,63E+01 4,15E+01 3,50E+01 2,28E+01 2,54E+01 5,41E+01 5,55E+01
Br g -8,39E-02 1,21E-02 1,07E-02 -6,47E-01 -1,31E+00 -3,16E-01 -6,44E-01 -1,30E+00 -6,51E-01 -1,30E+00 1,29E-02 -3,77E-01
butane g -7,18E-01 1,05E-01 9,19E-02 -5,54E+00 -1,12E+01 -2,71E+00 -5,52E+00 -1,11E+01 -5,57E+00 -1,12E+01 1,11E-01 -3,22E+00
butene ng -1,14E+01 1,67E+00 1,46E+00 -8,77E+01 -1,78E+02 -4,29E+01 -8,75E+01 -1,77E+02 -8,86E+01 -1,78E+02 1,76E+00 -5,14E+01
Ca g -1,09E+00 1,59E-01 1,40E-01 -8,38E+00 -1,71E+01 -4,11E+00 -8,38E+00 -1,69E+01 -8,46E+00 -1,70E+01 1,68E-01 -4,90E+00
carbonblack g 4,42E+01 2,76E+02 2,43E+02 2,27E+02 1,90E+02 2,51E+02 2,26E+02 1,93E+02 1,25E+02 1,41E+02 2,92E+02 3,01E+02
Cd g 5,35E+01 3,66E+02 2,96E+02 2,73E+02 2,19E+02 3,35E+02 3,04E+02 2,71E+02 1,49E+02 1,71E+02 3,66E+02 3,49E+02
CFC-116 ng -5,96E-01 3,04E-01 2,68E-01 -4,68E+00 -9,73E+00 -2,18E+00 -4,67E+00 -9,64E+00 -4,79E+00 -9,69E+00 3,23E-01 -2,59E+00
CFC-14 ng -4,76E+00 2,43E+00 2,14E+00 -3,74E+01 -7,76E+01 -1,75E+01 -3,74E+01 -7,72E+01 -3,84E+01 -7,75E+01 2,58E+00 -2,09E+01
Cl2 g -2,66E+00 -4,46E+00 -4,58E+00 -4,44E+00 -4,45E+00 -4,46E+00 -4,46E+00 -4,46E+00 -4,50E+00 -4,47E+00 -2,96E+00
CN ng -6,41E-02 9,49E-03 8,36E-03 -4,95E-01 -1,00E+00 -2,42E-01 -4,93E-01 -9,96E-01 -4,97E-01 -9,97E-01 1,01E-02 -2,88E-01
CO mg 7,68E+01 7,03E+02 6,99E+02 7,20E+02 7,27E+02 6,37E+02 5,71E+02 4,63E+02 7,50E+02 7,30E+02 9,34E+02 8,02E+02
TNO-MEP R 2000/119
TNO-report

Appendices
 SCENARIO NOW R15 R25y R35y R50y R25g R35g R50g R35y R50y R10i R10m
(MSWI HE HE
TNO-report

Appendices
Substance Unit part)

CO2 kg 1,77E-01 1,31E+00 1,13E+00 9,37E-01 6,31E-01 1,16E+00 1,01E+00 7,54E-01 4,43E-01 3,80E-01 1,48E+00 1,56E+00
cobalt ng -1,30E+01 1,89E+00 1,67E+00 -9,95E+01 -2,02E+02 -4,89E+01 -9,96E+01 -2,01E+02 -1,00E+02 -2,01E+02 2,01E+00 -5,82E+01
TNO-MEP R 2000/119

Cr ng -1,26E+01 1,82E+00 1,61E+00 -9,66E+01 -1,96E+02 -4,74E+01 -9,66E+01 -1,95E+02 -9,72E+01 -1,95E+02 1,93E+00 -5,64E+01
Cu ng -3,07E+01 4,47E+00 3,94E+00 -2,36E+02 -4,79E+02 -1,16E+02 -2,36E+02 -4,76E+02 -2,38E+02 -4,77E+02 4,74E+00 -1,38E+02
dioxin (TEQ) ng 2,52E-01 1,57E+00 1,38E+00 1,29E+00 1,09E+00 1,42E+00 1,28E+00 1,07E+00 7,14E-01 8,03E-01 1,65E+00 1,73E+00
dust mg -3,91E+01 -3,83E+02 -3,39E+02 -2,36E+02 -1,03E+02 -2,39E+02 -9,42E+01 1,25E+02 -2,16E+02 -8,79E+01 -4,60E+02 -5,04E+02
dust fine mg -1,44E+02 -4,16E+02 -4,19E+02 -4,67E+02 -5,18E+02 -4,42E+02 -4,67E+02 -5,19E+02 -4,69E+02 -5,19E+02 -2,56E+02 -1,51E+02
ethane g -1,13E+00 1,65E-01 1,45E-01 -8,72E+00 -1,76E+01 -4,26E+00 -8,69E+00 -1,76E+01 -8,78E+00 -1,76E+01 1,75E-01 -5,09E+00
ethanol g -1,07E-01 1,56E-02 1,37E-02 -8,23E-01 -1,67E+00 -4,02E-01 -8,20E-01 -1,66E+00 -8,30E-01 -1,66E+00 1,65E-02 -4,80E-01
ethene g -6,29E-02 9,26E-03 8,15E-03 -4,84E-01 -9,85E-01 -2,37E-01 -4,84E-01 -9,77E-01 -4,88E-01 -9,78E-01 9,81E-03 -2,83E-01
ethylbenzene g -1,68E-01 2,43E-02 2,14E-02 -1,29E+00 -2,62E+00 -6,32E-01 -1,29E+00 -2,60E+00 -1,30E+00 -2,61E+00 2,57E-02 -7,54E-01
F2 g 2,60E-01 1,62E+00 1,42E+00 1,33E+00 1,12E+00 1,47E+00 1,33E+00 1,13E+00 7,33E-01 8,27E-01 1,71E+00 1,77E+00
Fe g -9,13E-01 1,32E-01 1,17E-01 -7,01E+00 -1,43E+01 -3,43E+00 -6,99E+00 -1,41E+01 -7,08E+00 -1,42E+01 1,40E-01 -4,10E+00
fluoranthene ng 8,19E+01 5,10E+02 4,49E+02 4,20E+02 3,53E+02 4,64E+02 4,19E+02 3,58E+02 2,31E+02 2,61E+02 5,41E+02 5,58E+02
formaldehyde g -4,13E-01 6,02E-02 5,30E-02 -3,19E+00 -6,47E+00 -1,56E+00 -3,18E+00 -6,43E+00 -3,21E+00 -6,43E+00 6,38E-02 -1,87E+00
H2S g -7,22E+01 -2,24E+02 -2,51E+02 -2,66E+02 -2,97E+02 -2,45E+02 -2,66E+02 -2,95E+02 -3,51E+02 -3,38E+02 -1,30E+02 1,72E+02
HALON-1301 g -7,45E+00 -1,14E+01 -3,28E+01 -2,89E+01 -3,54E+01 -2,03E+01 -2,91E+01 -3,66E+01 -1,76E+01 -3,03E+01 -1,38E+01 -1,42E+01
HCl mg 2,00E+01 1,44E+02 1,07E+02 1,04E+02 8,62E+01 1,43E+02 1,43E+02 1,52E+02 5,41E+01 7,44E+01 1,38E+02 1,16E+02
heptane g -1,14E-01 1,67E-02 1,46E-02 -8,77E-01 -1,78E+00 -4,29E-01 -8,75E-01 -1,77E+00 -8,86E-01 -1,78E+00 1,76E-02 -5,14E-01
hexane-n g -2,41E-01 3,51E-02 3,09E-02 -1,85E+00 -3,76E+00 -9,06E-01 -1,85E+00 -3,73E+00 -1,87E+00 -3,74E+00 3,72E-02 -1,08E+00
HF mg -1,52E+00 -1,18E+01 -1,05E+01 -8,81E+00 -6,35E+00 -9,39E+00 -6,98E+00 -3,50E+00 -4,03E+00 -4,13E+00 -1,27E+01 -1,27E+01
Hg g 1,88E+01 1,16E+02 1,05E+02 9,89E+01 8,44E+01 1,06E+02 9,62E+01 8,40E+01 5,43E+01 6,37E+01 1,25E+02 1,27E+02
hydrocarb.inc.msw mg 2,52E+01 1,57E+02 1,38E+02 1,29E+02 1,09E+02 1,42E+02 1,28E+02 1,07E+02 7,14E+01 8,03E+01 1,65E+02 1,73E+02
hydrocarb.undefined g -1,04E+00 -3,02E+00 -3,04E+00 -3,07E+00 -3,13E+00 -3,05E+00 -3,08E+00 -3,13E+00 -3,09E+00 -3,14E+00 -1,77E+00 -9,73E-01
hydrocarbnm.undefined g -1,08E-01 -4,50E-02 -6,42E-01 -4,13E-01 -4,73E-01 -2,86E-01 -5,27E-01 -7,04E-01 1,27E-01 -2,27E-01 -1,82E-01 -1,87E-01
I g -4,03E-02 5,85E-03 5,16E-03 -3,11E-01 -6,31E-01 -1,52E-01 -3,10E-01 -6,27E-01 -3,13E-01 -6,28E-01 6,21E-03 -1,82E-01
K g -2,08E-01 3,02E-02 2,66E-02 -1,61E+00 -3,27E+00 -7,87E-01 -1,60E+00 -3,24E+00 -1,62E+00 -3,25E+00 3,21E-02 -9,39E-01
La ng -6,71E-01 9,70E-02 8,51E-02 -5,15E+00 -1,05E+01 -2,53E+00 -5,16E+00 -1,04E+01 -5,21E+00 -1,04E+01 1,02E-01 -3,02E+00
metals heavy undef mg -2,68E-01 -8,05E-01 -8,11E-01 -8,02E-01 -8,04E-01 -8,05E-01 -8,05E-01 -8,05E-01 -8,08E-01 -8,06E-01 -4,92E-01 -2,40E-01
metals undefined mg -1,31E+01 -5,44E+01 -6,19E+01 -5,56E+01 -5,25E+01 -5,23E+01 -5,02E+01 -4,43E+01 -5,68E+01 -5,41E+01 -5,86E+01 -6,03E+01
methane g -6,35E-01 -1,86E+00 -1,94E+00 -1,69E+00 -1,47E+00 -1,67E+00 -1,47E+00 -1,14E+00 -5,73E+00 -3,60E+00 -2,03E+00 -2,11E+00
methanol g -1,07E-01 1,56E-02 1,38E-02 -8,23E-01 -1,67E+00 -4,05E-01 -8,26E-01 -1,67E+00 -8,31E-01 -1,67E+00 1,66E-02 -4,82E-01
103 of 127
 SCENARIO NOW R15 R25y R35y R50y R25g R35g R50g R35y R50y R10i R10m
HE HE 104 of 127
(MSWI
Substance Unit part)

Mg g -6,14E-01 8,87E-02 7,81E-02 -4,73E+00 -9,60E+00 -2,32E+00 -4,72E+00 -9,55E+00 -4,76E+00 -9,55E+00 9,40E-02 -2,75E+00
Mn g -9,70E+00 -7,34E+01 -6,12E+01 -5,15E+01 -3,51E+01 -5,76E+01 -4,18E+01 -1,98E+01 -4,15E+01 -3,13E+01 -7,94E+01 -8,13E+01
Mo ng -3,80E+00 5,52E-01 4,87E-01 -2,93E+01 -5,93E+01 -1,43E+01 -2,92E+01 -5,90E+01 -2,95E+01 -5,91E+01 5,86E-01 -1,70E+01
N2O mg -1,66E+00 -6,71E+00 -5,82E+00 -5,54E+00 -4,75E+00 -5,95E+00 -5,19E+00 -4,36E+00 -1,52E+01 -1,00E+01 -7,77E+00 -8,83E+00
Na g -2,89E-01 4,20E-02 3,70E-02 -2,23E+00 -4,51E+00 -1,09E+00 -2,22E+00 -4,49E+00 -2,24E+00 -4,49E+00 4,45E-02 -1,30E+00
NH3 mg 6,49E-01 4,07E+00 3,55E+00 3,32E+00 2,81E+00 3,68E+00 3,29E+00 2,75E+00 1,83E+00 2,06E+00 4,26E+00 4,44E+00
NH4 mg -2,10E-01 -1,70E+00 -1,41E+00 -1,18E+00 -7,91E-01 -1,29E+00 -8,85E-01 -3,29E-01 -9,50E-01 -7,12E-01 -1,85E+00 -1,91E+00
Ni mg -2,77E-01 -1,71E+00 -1,65E+00 -1,46E+00 -1,21E+00 -1,51E+00 -1,31E+00 -9,97E-01 -7,15E-01 -8,59E-01 -1,84E+00 -1,90E+00
NO mg 1,03E+01 6,46E+01 5,62E+01 5,26E+01 4,45E+01 5,84E+01 5,22E+01 4,36E+01 2,91E+01 3,27E+01 6,76E+01 7,04E+01
NOx (as NO2) g -3,36E-01 -1,84E+00 -1,43E+00 -1,38E+00 -1,13E+00 -1,76E+00 -1,68E+00 -1,71E+00 -3,49E-03 -4,96E-01 -1,51E+00 -1,34E+00
P ng -2,01E+01 2,90E+00 2,56E+00 -1,55E+02 -3,15E+02 -7,60E+01 -1,55E+02 -3,13E+02 -1,56E+02 -3,13E+02 3,08E+00 -9,06E+01
PAH g -3,48E+00 -2,40E+01 -2,23E+01 -1,89E+01 -1,43E+01 -1,99E+01 -1,57E+01 -9,53E+00 -1,06E+01 -1,05E+01 -2,62E+01 -2,71E+01
Pb g -3,11E+01 -1,84E+02 -1,69E+02 -1,44E+02 -1,10E+02 -1,50E+02 -1,16E+02 -6,53E+01 -1,55E+02 -1,16E+02 -2,03E+02 -2,16E+02
pentane g -9,52E-01 1,39E-01 1,22E-01 -7,35E+00 -1,49E+01 -3,61E+00 -7,35E+00 -1,48E+01 -7,39E+00 -1,48E+01 1,47E-01 -4,29E+00
phenol ng -1,49E-01 2,29E-02 2,02E-02 -1,15E+00 -2,35E+00 -5,66E-01 -1,15E+00 -2,33E+00 -1,16E+00 -2,33E+00 2,43E-02 -6,73E-01
propane g -8,33E-01 1,22E-01 1,07E-01 -6,42E+00 -1,30E+01 -3,13E+00 -6,38E+00 -1,29E+01 -6,47E+00 -1,30E+01 1,29E-01 -3,75E+00
propene g -3,75E-02 5,46E-03 4,81E-03 -2,88E-01 -5,85E-01 -1,41E-01 -2,88E-01 -5,82E-01 -2,91E-01 -5,82E-01 5,79E-03 -1,68E-01
propionicacid ng -4,12E+00 6,01E-01 5,29E-01 -3,18E+01 -6,45E+01 -1,56E+01 -3,17E+01 -6,41E+01 -3,20E+01 -6,41E+01 6,37E-01 -1,85E+01
Pt ng -2,37E-06 3,45E-07 3,04E-07 -1,82E-05 -3,69E-05 -8,91E-06 -1,82E-05 -3,67E-05 -1,83E-05 -3,68E-05 3,66E-07 -1,06E-05
Sb ng -9,19E-01 1,33E-01 1,17E-01 -7,06E+00 -1,44E+01 -3,46E+00 -7,05E+00 -1,43E+01 -7,14E+00 -1,43E+01 1,41E-01 -4,14E+00
Sc ng -2,54E-01 3,67E-02 3,23E-02 -1,96E+00 -3,98E+00 -9,60E-01 -1,96E+00 -3,95E+00 -1,98E+00 -3,96E+00 3,88E-02 -1,14E+00
Se g 1,21E-01 8,53E-01 7,51E-01 5,81E-01 3,48E-01 7,17E-01 5,81E-01 3,58E-01 2,66E-01 1,97E-01 9,03E-01 8,58E-01
Sn g 1,39E+00 8,50E+00 7,41E+00 6,95E+00 5,93E+00 7,74E+00 6,99E+00 5,91E+00 3,85E+00 4,30E+00 8,90E+00 9,46E+00
SO2 mg 5,34E+00 6,45E+01 5,55E+01 1,63E+01 -2,77E+01 3,91E+01 1,38E+01 -3,23E+01 -6,93E+00 -3,90E+01 6,68E+01 4,90E+01
SOx (as SO2) g -1,32E+00 -6,72E+00 -6,23E+00 -5,76E+00 -5,03E+00 -5,98E+00 -5,25E+00 -4,22E+00 -4,05E+00 -4,22E+00 -6,43E+00 -6,28E+00
Sr ng -2,79E+01 4,03E+00 3,55E+00 -2,15E+02 -4,36E+02 -1,05E+02 -2,14E+02 -4,33E+02 -2,16E+02 -4,34E+02 4,27E+00 -1,25E+02
Th ng -1,54E+00 2,24E-01 1,97E-01 -1,19E+01 -2,41E+01 -5,84E+00 -1,19E+01 -2,40E+01 -1,20E+01 -2,40E+01 2,37E-01 -6,95E+00
Ti g -7,56E-02 1,09E-02 9,62E-03 -5,83E-01 -1,18E+00 -2,85E-01 -5,81E-01 -1,18E+00 -5,87E-01 -1,18E+00 1,16E-02 -3,40E-01
Tl ng -6,25E-02 9,02E-03 7,95E-03 -4,82E-01 -9,77E-01 -2,36E-01 -4,81E-01 -9,71E-01 -4,86E-01 -9,73E-01 9,56E-03 -2,82E-01
toluene g 1,63E-01 2,24E+00 1,97E+00 3,40E-01 -1,47E+00 1,29E+00 3,40E-01 -1,43E+00 -4,88E-01 -1,85E+00 2,37E+00 1,55E+00
U ng -6,75E-01 9,75E-02 8,59E-02 -5,20E+00 -1,06E+01 -2,55E+00 -5,19E+00 -1,05E+01 -5,24E+00 -1,05E+01 1,03E-01 -3,04E+00
V g -4,51E-01 6,58E-02 5,79E-02 -3,48E+00 -7,06E+00 -1,70E+00 -3,47E+00 -7,01E+00 -3,50E+00 -7,02E+00 6,97E-02 -2,03E+00
TNO-MEP R 2000/119
TNO-report

Appendices
 SCENARIO NOW R15 R25y R35y R50y R25g R35g R50g R35y R50y R10i R10m
(MSWI HE HE
TNO-report

Appendices
Substance Unit part)

vinylchloride ng -2,00E-01 4,92E-02 4,33E-02 -1,56E+00 -3,18E+00 -7,52E-01 -1,55E+00 -3,16E+00 -1,58E+00 -3,17E+00 5,21E-02 -8,96E-01
xylene g -3,35E-01 2,48E+00 2,19E+00 -3,56E+00 -9,57E+00 -5,37E-01 -3,55E+00 -9,47E+00 -4,48E+00 -9,93E+00 2,63E+00 -6,27E-01
TNO-MEP R 2000/119

Zn g 1,36E+02 8,61E+02 6,74E+02 6,61E+02 5,60E+02 8,08E+02 7,56E+02 6,86E+02 3,23E+02 3,61E+02 8,80E+02 9,50E+02
Zr ng -3,66E-02 5,43E-03 4,78E-03 -2,82E-01 -5,72E-01 -1,38E-01 -2,81E-01 -5,69E-01 -2,84E-01 -5,69E-01 5,75E-03 -1,64E-01

Emissions to water
calcium compounds mg -4,96E-02 7,17E-03 6,32E-03 -3,82E-01 -7,75E-01 -1,87E-01 -3,81E-01 -7,70E-01 -3,85E-01 -7,71E-01 7,61E-03 -2,23E-01
CxHy mg -8,97E+00 -2,76E+01 -2,78E+01 -2,76E+01 -2,78E+01 -2,76E+01 -2,77E+01 -2,77E+01 -2,77E+01 -2,78E+01 -1,74E+01 -7,99E+00
CxHy aromatic mg -1,36E+00 -2,12E+00 -5,92E+00 -5,23E+00 -6,37E+00 -3,69E+00 -5,26E+00 -6,57E+00 -3,41E+00 -5,56E+00 -2,55E+00 -2,63E+00
CxHy chloro g -9,48E+00 -1,62E+01 -2,04E+01 -1,91E+01 -2,02E+01 -1,77E+01 -1,92E+01 -2,04E+01 -1,73E+01 -1,94E+01 -3,30E+00 -1,23E+01
dichloroethane ng -1,76E-01 4,30E-02 3,78E-02 -1,36E+00 -2,78E+00 -6,59E-01 -1,36E+00 -2,76E+00 -1,38E+00 -2,77E+00 4,56E-02 -7,84E-01
methylenechloride ng -3,81E-01 5,61E-02 4,94E-02 -2,93E+00 -5,96E+00 -1,44E+00 -2,93E+00 -5,92E+00 -2,96E+00 -5,92E+00 5,94E-02 -1,72E+00
organics dissolved mg -1,08E+02 -1,83E+02 -1,88E+02 -1,82E+02 -1,83E+02 -1,83E+02 -1,83E+02 -1,83E+02 -1,85E+02 -1,84E+02 -2,35E+00 -1,20E+02
P2O5 g -7,99E+01 -1,34E+02 -1,38E+02 -1,33E+02 -1,33E+02 -1,34E+02 -1,34E+02 -1,34E+02 -1,35E+02 -1,34E+02 -8,88E+01
tributyltin ng -1,38E+00 2,00E-01 1,76E-01 -1,06E+01 -2,15E+01 -5,19E+00 -1,06E+01 -2,14E+01 -1,07E+01 -2,14E+01 2,12E-01 -6,19E+00
unspecified emission mg -2,97E+00 -1,22E+01 -1,22E+01 -1,22E+01 -1,22E+01 -1,22E+01 -1,22E+01 -1,22E+01 -1,22E+01 -1,22E+01 -9,96E+00 -2,15E+00
acid (as H+) mg -4,34E+00 -1,23E+01 -1,24E+01 -1,23E+01 -1,23E+01 -1,23E+01 -1,23E+01 -1,23E+01 -1,24E+01 -1,24E+01 -6,86E+00 -3,85E+00
Ag ng -2,10E-01 3,07E-02 2,70E-02 -1,62E+00 -3,29E+00 -7,93E-01 -1,62E+00 -3,27E+00 -1,63E+00 -3,27E+00 3,26E-02 -9,45E-01
Al g -1,11E-01 -3,31E-01 -2,79E-01 -2,34E-01 -1,60E-01 -2,60E-01 -1,89E-01 -9,01E-02 -1,24E+00 -6,91E-01 -3,59E-01 -3,67E-01
alkanes g -4,45E-02 6,49E-03 5,72E-03 -3,43E-01 -6,96E-01 -1,68E-01 -3,42E-01 -6,93E-01 -3,45E-01 -6,92E-01 6,88E-03 -2,00E-01
alkenes ng -4,05E+00 5,89E-01 5,19E-01 -3,11E+01 -6,32E+01 -1,52E+01 -3,10E+01 -6,28E+01 -3,14E+01 -6,28E+01 6,25E-01 -1,82E+01
AOX g -5,22E+00 -7,62E+00 -2,30E+01 -2,00E+01 -2,45E+01 -1,40E+01 -2,03E+01 -2,57E+01 -1,24E+01 -2,10E+01 -9,49E+00 -9,78E+00
As mg -2,25E-01 -6,62E-01 -5,61E-01 -4,71E-01 -3,25E-01 -5,22E-01 -3,82E-01 -1,85E-01 -2,49E+00 -1,39E+00 -7,17E-01 -7,34E-01
B g -7,56E-02 1,09E-02 9,62E-03 -5,83E-01 -1,18E+00 -2,85E-01 -5,81E-01 -1,18E+00 -5,87E-01 -1,18E+00 1,16E-02 -3,40E-01
Ba mg -1,29E+01 -3,22E+01 -3,92E+01 -3,37E+01 -3,13E+01 -3,13E+01 -3,03E+01 -2,64E+01 -1,10E+02 -7,17E+01 -3,56E+01 -3,65E+01
barite g -7,92E+00 1,16E+00 1,02E+00 -6,08E+01 -1,24E+02 -2,98E+01 -6,07E+01 -1,23E+02 -6,15E+01 -1,23E+02 1,23E+00 -3,57E+01
Be ng -3,10E-02 4,51E-03 3,97E-03 -2,38E-01 -4,83E-01 -1,17E-01 -2,38E-01 -4,80E-01 -2,40E-01 -4,81E-01 4,78E-03 -1,39E-01
benzene g -4,47E-02 6,51E-03 5,73E-03 -3,44E-01 -6,97E-01 -1,68E-01 -3,43E-01 -6,93E-01 -3,46E-01 -6,94E-01 6,89E-03 -2,00E-01
BOD mg -1,39E+01 -3,38E+01 -3,44E+01 -3,38E+01 -3,39E+01 -3,39E+01 -3,39E+01 -3,40E+01 -3,39E+01 -3,39E+01 -1,46E+01 -1,38E+01
Cd g -6,73E+00 -1,59E+01 -1,86E+01 -1,56E+01 -1,36E+01 -1,44E+01 -1,28E+01 -9,49E+00 -6,49E+01 -3,96E+01 -1,79E+01 -1,86E+01
chlorobenzene ng -2,62E-07 3,57E-08 3,15E-08 -2,02E-06 -4,10E-06 -9,91E-07 -2,02E-06 -4,07E-06 -2,03E-06 -4,07E-06 3,79E-08 -1,18E-06
Cl g -1,29E+00 -1,65E+00 -4,05E+00 -3,46E+00 -4,02E+00 -2,36E+00 -3,07E+00 -3,46E+00 -7,85E+00 -6,31E+00 -1,88E+00 -2,19E+00
105 of 127
 SCENARIO NOW R15 R25y R35y R50y R25g R35g R50g R35y R50y R10i R10m
HE HE 106 of 127
(MSWI
Substance Unit part)

CN g -7,20E+00 -1,76E+01 -3,33E+01 -2,88E+01 -3,18E+01 -2,26E+01 -2,76E+01 -3,06E+01 -2,20E+01 -2,91E+01 -2,03E+01 -2,08E+01
cobalt g -8,76E-02 1,27E-02 1,11E-02 -6,76E-01 -1,37E+00 -3,31E-01 -6,74E-01 -1,36E+00 -6,80E-01 -1,36E+00 1,34E-02 -3,94E-01
COD mg -7,12E+01 -1,95E+02 -2,00E+02 -1,96E+02 -1,96E+02 -1,96E+02 -1,97E+02 -1,98E+02 -1,95E+02 -1,96E+02 -1,06E+02 -6,59E+01
Cr mg -1,13E+00 -3,31E+00 -2,82E+00 -2,37E+00 -1,65E+00 -2,62E+00 -1,93E+00 -9,64E-01 -1,25E+01 -6,99E+00 -3,58E+00 -3,67E+00
CrVI ng -1,15E-01 1,65E-02 1,46E-02 -8,82E-01 -1,80E+00 -4,32E-01 -8,81E-01 -1,78E+00 -8,90E-01 -1,78E+00 1,75E-02 -5,15E-01
Cs ng -3,34E-01 4,88E-02 4,30E-02 -2,58E+00 -5,24E+00 -1,26E+00 -2,58E+00 -5,21E+00 -2,60E+00 -5,21E+00 5,17E-02 -1,50E+00
Cu mg -5,59E-01 -1,64E+00 -1,39E+00 -1,17E+00 -8,05E-01 -1,29E+00 -9,47E-01 -4,61E-01 -6,22E+00 -3,47E+00 -1,78E+00 -1,82E+00
DOC g -8,62E+01 -6,71E+02 -5,77E+02 -5,00E+02 -3,68E+02 -5,48E+02 -4,25E+02 -2,51E+02 -2,20E+02 -2,31E+02 -7,27E+02 -7,54E+02
ethylbenzene ng -8,04E+00 1,17E+00 1,03E+00 -6,18E+01 -1,26E+02 -3,04E+01 -6,20E+01 -1,25E+02 -6,24E+01 -1,25E+02 1,24E+00 -3,62E+01
F g 5,87E+00 3,71E+01 3,29E+01 2,97E+01 2,39E+01 3,32E+01 2,94E+01 2,37E+01 1,59E+01 1,70E+01 3,95E+01 4,05E+01
F2 g -4,61E-01 -3,52E+00 -7,09E+00 -1,76E+00 -3,52E+00 -7,04E+00 -3,52E+00 -7,04E+00 -2,10E+00
Fe mg -6,01E+01 -3,58E+02 -3,00E+02 -2,45E+02 -1,59E+02 -2,72E+02 -1,87E+02 -6,66E+01 -4,33E+02 -2,65E+02 -3,90E+02 -3,98E+02
formaldehyde ng -2,49E-03 3,81E-04 3,35E-04 -1,92E-02 -3,90E-02 -9,41E-03 -1,92E-02 -3,88E-02 -1,94E-02 -3,88E-02 4,04E-04 -1,12E-02
glutaraldehyde ng -9,78E-01 1,43E-01 1,26E-01 -7,55E+00 -1,53E+01 -3,70E+00 -7,53E+00 -1,52E+01 -7,59E+00 -1,52E+01 1,52E-01 -4,40E+00
H2S ng -1,83E+00 2,71E-01 2,39E-01 -1,41E+01 -2,86E+01 -6,91E+00 -1,41E+01 -2,85E+01 -1,42E+01 -2,85E+01 2,88E-01 -8,23E+00
Hg ng -6,54E+01 -5,02E+02 -4,64E+02 -3,85E+02 -2,84E+02 -4,06E+02 -3,10E+02 -1,66E+02 -1,47E+02 -1,71E+02 -5,48E+02 -5,62E+02
HOCL g -4,05E-01 5,88E-02 5,18E-02 -3,12E+00 -6,33E+00 -1,53E+00 -3,12E+00 -6,30E+00 -3,14E+00 -6,30E+00 6,24E-02 -1,82E+00
I ng -3,36E+01 4,89E+00 4,30E+00 -2,58E+02 -5,24E+02 -1,26E+02 -2,58E+02 -5,21E+02 -2,60E+02 -5,21E+02 5,18E+00 -1,51E+02
K g -1,48E+01 2,13E+00 1,88E+00 -1,14E+02 -2,31E+02 -5,57E+01 -1,14E+02 -2,30E+02 -1,15E+02 -2,30E+02 2,26E+00 -6,64E+01
Kjeld N mg 3,50E-03 1,73E-01 -1,77E-01 6,54E-03 2,18E-02 2,77E-02 -1,18E-01 -2,17E-01 5,15E-01 2,59E-01 6,48E-02 6,74E-02
metals undefined mg -3,22E+01 -8,70E+01 -1,09E+02 -9,93E+01 -9,98E+01 -9,09E+01 -9,48E+01 -9,39E+01 -1,90E+02 -1,48E+02 -8,18E+01 -6,58E+01
Mg mg -3,77E-02 5,46E-03 4,81E-03 -2,91E-01 -5,91E-01 -1,42E-01 -2,90E-01 -5,87E-01 -2,93E-01 -5,88E-01 5,79E-03 -1,70E-01
Mn g -1,06E+00 1,54E-01 1,35E-01 -8,19E+00 -1,66E+01 -3,99E+00 -8,14E+00 -1,65E+01 -8,24E+00 -1,65E+01 1,63E-01 -4,77E+00
Mo g -1,46E-01 2,10E-02 1,85E-02 -1,12E+00 -2,26E+00 -5,45E-01 -1,11E+00 -2,25E+00 -1,13E+00 -2,25E+00 2,22E-02 -6,52E-01
N-total mg -9,04E-01 -5,01E-01 -4,57E+00 -3,33E+00 -4,08E+00 -2,20E+00 -3,89E+00 -5,23E+00 -4,49E-01 -2,77E+00 -1,21E+00 -1,27E+00
Na mg -2,45E+01 -3,87E+01 -4,02E+01 -4,02E+01 -4,18E+01 -3,96E+01 -4,05E+01 -4,22E+01 -4,18E+01 -4,26E+01 2,82E+00 -2,52E+01
NH3 g -2,14E-01 -1,63E+00 -3,29E+00 -8,14E-01 -1,63E+00 -3,26E+00 -1,63E+00 -3,26E+00 -9,72E-01
NH4 mg -1,49E+00 -4,24E+00 -7,89E+00 -6,19E+00 -6,22E+00 -5,27E+00 -6,30E+00 -6,69E+00 -2,83E+00 -4,75E+00 -5,04E+00 -4,63E+00
Ni mg -5,62E-01 -1,62E+00 -1,38E+00 -1,16E+00 -8,04E-01 -1,28E+00 -9,43E-01 -4,68E-01 -6,27E+00 -3,49E+00 -1,75E+00 -1,79E+00
nitrate mg -1,94E+00 -8,80E+00 -1,06E+01 -9,12E+00 -8,46E+00 -8,46E+00 -8,11E+00 -6,99E+00 -5,24E+00 -6,69E+00 -9,39E+00 -8,78E+00
oil mg -4,20E+01 -6,49E+01 -1,84E+02 -1,62E+02 -1,97E+02 -1,14E+02 -1,63E+02 -2,04E+02 -1,05E+02 -1,72E+02 -7,85E+01 -8,07E+01
oil crude mg -5,74E+00 -1,96E+01 -1,97E+01 -1,97E+01 -1,97E+01 -1,96E+01 -1,97E+01 -1,97E+01 -1,97E+01 -1,98E+01 -1,37E+01 -4,83E+00
TNO-MEP R 2000/119
TNO-report

Appendices
 SCENARIO NOW R15 R25y R35y R50y R25g R35g R50g R35y R50y R10i R10m
(MSWI HE HE
TNO-report

Appendices
Substance Unit part)

P-total ng -8,13E-02 1,19E-02 1,05E-02 -6,27E-01 -1,27E+00 -3,07E-01 -6,26E-01 -1,26E+00 -6,30E-01 -1,26E+00 1,26E-02 -3,65E-01
PAH g -2,06E+01 -3,12E+01 -8,97E+01 -7,91E+01 -9,67E+01 -5,56E+01 -8,00E+01 -1,01E+02 -5,19E+01 -8,47E+01 -3,79E+01 -3,90E+01
TNO-MEP R 2000/119

Pb mg -5,87E-01 -1,92E+00 -1,61E+00 -1,35E+00 -9,13E-01 -1,50E+00 -1,08E+00 -4,93E-01 -6,30E+00 -3,53E+00 -2,08E+00 -2,13E+00
phenol mg -2,35E-01 -3,71E-01 -1,02E+00 -9,06E-01 -1,10E+00 -6,37E-01 -9,03E-01 -1,13E+00 -6,16E-01 -9,76E-01 -4,42E-01 -4,55E-01
phosphate mg -7,02E+00 -2,09E+01 -1,78E+01 -1,52E+01 -1,09E+01 -1,67E+01 -1,26E+01 -6,77E+00 -7,58E+01 -4,27E+01 -2,22E+01 -2,20E+01
S ng -1,04E+01 1,51E+00 1,34E+00 -7,99E+01 -1,62E+02 -3,90E+01 -7,96E+01 -1,61E+02 -8,06E+01 -1,61E+02 1,61E+00 -4,67E+01
salts mg -1,26E-01 1,84E-02 1,62E-02 -9,75E-01 -1,98E+00 -4,77E-01 -9,72E-01 -1,97E+00 -9,81E-01 -1,97E+00 1,96E-02 -5,69E-01
Sb ng -7,12E-01 1,03E-01 9,10E-02 -5,49E+00 -1,11E+01 -2,68E+00 -5,47E+00 -1,11E+01 -5,52E+00 -1,11E+01 1,09E-01 -3,20E+00
Se g -2,23E-01 3,23E-02 2,84E-02 -1,72E+00 -3,50E+00 -8,44E-01 -1,72E+00 -3,47E+00 -1,73E+00 -3,48E+00 3,42E-02 -1,00E+00
Si ng -1,89E-01 2,75E-02 2,43E-02 -1,45E+00 -2,95E+00 -7,12E-01 -1,45E+00 -2,93E+00 -1,46E+00 -2,93E+00 2,92E-02 -8,47E-01
Sn ng 1,73E+01 1,10E+02 9,63E+01 8,56E+01 6,74E+01 9,79E+01 8,58E+01 6,72E+01 4,52E+01 4,64E+01 1,16E+02 1,20E+02
solids anorg dissolved g -1,01E+00 -2,60E+00 -4,05E+00 -3,49E+00 -3,61E+00 -2,93E+00 -3,25E+00 -3,32E+00 -5,41E+00 -4,70E+00 -2,94E+00 -3,02E+00
solids dissolved mg -1,56E+01 -4,46E+01 -4,50E+01 -4,59E+01 -4,73E+01 -4,53E+01 -4,59E+01 -4,73E+01 -4,61E+01 -4,73E+01 -2,58E+01 -1,49E+01
solids suspended g -1,26E-01 -2,95E-01 -5,36E-01 -4,78E-01 -5,35E-01 -3,81E-01 -4,68E-01 -5,29E-01 -3,30E-01 -4,69E-01 -3,01E-01 -2,93E-01
Sr g -2,55E+00 3,71E-01 3,27E-01 -1,97E+01 -3,99E+01 -9,63E+00 -1,96E+01 -3,96E+01 -1,98E+01 -3,97E+01 3,93E-01 -1,15E+01
Sulphate g -6,84E-01 -3,18E+00 -2,72E+00 -2,24E+00 -1,50E+00 -2,46E+00 -1,75E+00 -7,32E-01 -5,89E+00 -3,47E+00 -3,45E+00 -3,53E+00
Sulphide g -4,90E+01 -8,01E+01 -2,16E+02 -1,90E+02 -2,30E+02 -1,35E+02 -1,90E+02 -2,35E+02 -1,22E+02 -1,99E+02 -9,66E+01 -9,94E+01
Sulphite ng -1,99E+01 2,86E+00 2,52E+00 -1,53E+02 -3,10E+02 -7,48E+01 -1,53E+02 -3,08E+02 -1,54E+02 -3,09E+02 3,03E+00 -8,92E+01
Ti g -2,63E+00 3,80E-01 3,34E-01 -2,02E+01 -4,11E+01 -9,93E+00 -2,02E+01 -4,09E+01 -2,04E+01 -4,09E+01 4,03E-01 -1,18E+01
TOC mg -1,74E+01 -6,26E+01 -9,06E+01 -7,83E+01 -7,91E+01 -6,84E+01 -7,41E+01 -7,40E+01 -4,18E+01 -6,19E+01 -7,07E+01 -7,32E+01
Toluene mg -1,87E-01 -2,89E-01 -8,18E-01 -7,23E-01 -8,80E-01 -5,07E-01 -7,24E-01 -9,08E-01 -4,48E-01 -7,57E-01 -3,49E-01 -3,60E-01
Trichloroethene ng -3,01E-02 7,37E-03 6,49E-03 -2,33E-01 -4,76E-01 -1,13E-01 -2,33E-01 -4,73E-01 -2,36E-01 -4,74E-01 7,81E-03 -1,34E-01
V g -2,38E-01 3,44E-02 3,03E-02 -1,83E+00 -3,73E+00 -8,97E-01 -1,83E+00 -3,70E+00 -1,85E+00 -3,70E+00 3,65E-02 -1,07E+00
W ng -4,79E-01 6,89E-02 6,07E-02 -3,68E+00 -7,48E+00 -1,80E+00 -3,68E+00 -7,43E+00 -3,71E+00 -7,43E+00 7,30E-02 -2,15E+00
Xylene ng -3,22E+01 4,70E+00 4,14E+00 -2,48E+02 -5,04E+02 -1,22E+02 -2,48E+02 -5,01E+02 -2,50E+02 -5,01E+02 4,98E+00 -1,45E+02
Zn mg -1,13E+00 -3,33E+00 -2,84E+00 -2,38E+00 -1,66E+00 -2,64E+00 -1,94E+00 -9,64E-01 -1,26E+01 -7,01E+00 -3,60E+00 -3,69E+00

Waste to deposit
chemical waste g 2,04E+00 1,32E+01 1,13E+01 1,06E+01 8,99E+00 1,16E+01 1,01E+01 7,94E+00 5,87E+00 6,60E+00 1,36E+01 1,44E+01
chemical waste (inert) mg -1,52E+02 -5,07E+02 -5,09E+02 -5,06E+02 -5,07E+02 -5,07E+02 -5,07E+02 -5,07E+02 -5,07E+02 -5,07E+02 -3,48E+02 -1,28E+02
final waste (inert) mg -1,16E+01 1,68E+00 1,48E+00 -8,92E+01 -1,81E+02 -4,35E+01 -8,87E+01 -1,79E+02 -8,97E+01 -1,80E+02 1,78E+00 -5,20E+01
high active nuclear
waste mm3 -8,62E-03 6,02E-05 5,30E-05 -6,58E-02 -1,32E-01 -3,27E-02 -6,55E-02 -1,31E-01 -6,59E-02 -1,32E-01 6,38E-05 -3,92E-02
107 of 127
 SCENARIO NOW R15 R25y R35y R50y R25g R35g R50g R35y R50y R10i R10m
HE HE 108 of 127
(MSWI
Substance Unit part)

industrial waste mg -1,64E+02 -5,40E+02 -5,43E+02 -5,40E+02 -5,40E+02 -5,40E+02 -5,40E+02 -5,40E+02 -5,41E+02 -5,40E+02 -3,65E+02 -1,41E+02
low&med. act. nucl.
Waste mm3 -2,89E-02 3,57E-03 3,15E-03 -2,22E-01 -4,51E-01 -1,09E-01 -2,22E-01 -4,48E-01 -2,24E-01 -4,48E-01 3,79E-03 -1,30E-01
mineral waste g -1,20E+00 -3,55E+00 -3,58E+00 -3,55E+00 -3,55E+00 -3,55E+00 -3,55E+00 -3,55E+00 -3,56E+00 -3,55E+00 -2,12E+00 -1,09E+00
process waste (not
inert) g -8,62E-03 7,08E-01 6,22E-01 -3,54E-01 -1,39E+00 1,79E-01 -3,50E-01 -1,37E+00 -6,12E-01 -1,50E+00 7,49E-01 2,18E-01
slag mg -7,67E+01 -1,28E+02 -1,32E+02 -1,28E+02 -1,28E+02 -1,28E+02 -1,28E+02 -1,28E+02 -1,30E+02 -1,29E+02 -8,53E+01
Slags/ash g -3,12E-01 -1,06E+00 -1,06E+00 -1,06E+00 -1,06E+00 -1,06E+00 -1,06E+00 -1,06E+00 -1,06E+00 -1,06E+00 -7,39E-01 -2,61E-01
chemical waste
(regulated) mg -1,32E+01 -2,73E+01 -2,79E+01 -2,73E+01 -2,73E+01 -2,73E+01 -2,73E+01 -2,73E+01 -2,75E+01 -2,74E+01 -7,26E+00 -1,38E+01
waste limestone g 7,74E-01 5,34E+00 4,37E+00 4,00E+00 3,19E+00 4,86E+00 4,39E+00 3,88E+00 2,17E+00 2,54E+00 5,35E+00 5,01E+00
Bottom ash g 5,16E+00 3,27E+01 2,83E+01 2,64E+01 2,23E+01 2,94E+01 2,60E+01 2,15E+01 1,46E+01 1,64E+01 3,40E+01 3,53E+01
fly ash inc.(H) g 9,88E-01 6,42E+00 5,38E+00 4,97E+00 4,08E+00 5,90E+00 5,38E+00 4,75E+00 2,72E+00 3,12E+00 6,52E+00 6,43E+00
FGCR (H) g 7,04E+00 4,84E+01 3,98E+01 3,65E+01 2,92E+01 4,40E+01 3,96E+01 3,49E+01 1,98E+01 2,31E+01 4,86E+01 4,58E+01
TNO-MEP R 2000/119
TNO-report

Appendices
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 109 of 127

Appendices

Table B.4.2.b Substances overview per scenario of scenarios including landfill

SCENARIO NOW
Landf (Landfill
Substance Unit part)

Resources

clay minerals mg -1,33E+00

ferromanganese kg -2,68E-09

sand kg -9,44E-07
Fe (ore) mg -1,51E+01

Mn (ore) kg -1,34E-07
crude oil ETH 42.6 g 2,04E+01 2,10E+01

energy from coal kJ -1,68E+02

energy from hydro power J 9,52E+02 3,63E+02
energy from nat gas MJ -2,20E+00

energy from oil MJ -2,59E+00

energy from uranium kJ -8,95E+01

energy unspecified kJ -9,58E+00

gas nat (v) ETH 35 l 1,03E+00 2,01E+00

raw bauxite mg -2,00E+01

raw coal 29.3 kg -6,16E-07

raw coal ETH 18 g 1,63E-01 5,53E+00
raw lignite ETH 8 g 2,17E-01 5,86E+00
raw limestone mg -2,36E+01

raw phosfate kg -8,02E-08

rock salt mg -1,00E+03

U from ore 451E3 mg 1,48E-02 5,86E-01

water kg -9,91E-01
wood 16 mg 1,60E+00 5,41E+01

Emissions to air
CxHy aromatic mg 4,03E-01 5,90E-01
CxHy chloro mg 3,86E-07 -4,54E-01
unspecified emission g -2,52E+04

benzene mg 2,42E+00 2,34E+00

Cd g 6,54E-01 1,06E+00
Cl2 kg -8,92E-10

CO mg 5,20E+02 3,65E+02
CO2 g 1,70E+02 2,62E+01
dioxin (TEQ) ng 1,70E-01 1,19E-01
dust mg 2,77E+01 5,12E+01
dust fine mg -1,62E+02

H2S g -2,04E+02
HALON-1301 g 4,89E+00 5,04E+00
HCl mg 1,38E-01 -3,12E-01
HF g 1,44E+01 1,74E+02
Hg g 6,73E-02 6,44E-01
 TNO-report

110 of 127 TNO-MEP R 2000/119

Appendices

SCENARIO NOW
Landf (Landfill
Substance Unit part)

hydrocarb.undefined g -1,15E+00
hydrocarbnm.undefined mg 4,20E+02 4,15E+02

metals heavy undef g -3,11E+02

metals undefined mg 2,12E-01 1,25E+00
methane g 1,44E+01 1,01E+01
Mn g 5,51E-02 1,96E+00

N2O mg 1,62E+00 1,75E+00

NH4 g 1,83E+00 6,00E+01
Ni g 3,24E+01 6,02E+01
NOx (as NO2) g 1,32E+00 5,76E-01
PAH g 5,08E-01 1,11E+00

Pb g 3,60E+00 7,85E+00
SOx (as SO2) g 1,01E-01 -4,21E-01

Zn g 2,16E+01 2,70E+01

Emissions to water
CxHy mg -1,08E+01
CxHy aromatic mg 8,73E-01 9,02E-01

CxHy chloro g 8,98E-01 -1,73E+00

organics dissolved mg -3,73E+01

P2O5 kg -2,68E-08
unspecified emission mg -5,47E+00

acid (as H+) mg -4,62E+00

Al mg 2,70E-01 8,99E+00
AOX g 4,03E+00 4,12E+00
As g 2,14E+00 1,93E+01
Ba mg 2,59E+00 3,35E+00
BOD mg 9,22E-02 -1,11E+01

Cd g 4,16E+00 3,89E+00

Cl g 7,69E-01 7,26E-01
CN g 4,05E+00 4,45E+00
COD mg 8,90E+00 -6,46E+01

Cr g 1,25E+01 9,85E+01
Cu g 3,54E+00 4,64E+01
DOC g 4,85E-01 1,38E+01
Fe mg 5,75E-01 1,22E+01

Hg ng 1,23E+02 1,04E+02
Kjeld N g 3,80E+02 3,72E+02

metals undefined mg 6,30E+00 -8,21E+00

N-total mg 4,15E+00 3,54E+00
Na kg -8,30E-06

NH4 mg 2,25E+00 1,94E+00

Ni g 4,20E+00 4,61E+01
nitrate g 6,75E+02 3,14E+02
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 111 of 127

Appendices

SCENARIO NOW
Landf (Landfill
Substance Unit part)

oil mg 2,74E+01 2,82E+01

oil crude mg -8,10E+00

PAH g 1,34E+01 1,38E+01

Pb g 4,55E+00 5,69E+01
E
phenol g 1,55 +02 1,55E+02
phosphate g 2,66E+01 -4,86E+01

SO4 mg 1,12E+01 7,78E+00

solids anorg dissolved mg 3,95E+02 4,57E+02
solids dissolved mg -1,68E+01
solids suspended mg 5,85E+01 3,72E+01
E
sulphate mg 1,93 +01 1,16E+02

sulphide g 3,22E+01 3,34E+01

E
TOC mg 9,43 +00 1,05E+01

toluene g 1,22E+02 1,26E+02

E
Zn g 2,21 +01 1,06E+02

Waste to deposit
chemical waste (inert) mg -2,07E+02

industrial waste mg -2,19E+02

mineral waste g -1,35E+00

slag kg -2,56E-05
slags/ash mg -4,37E+02

chemical waste (regulated) mg -7,67E+00

undefined g 9,50E+02 6,65E+02

E
undefined (H) g 8,01 +00 6,06E+00

Emissions to soil

As ng 1,63E+01 1,14E+01
E
Cd ng 1,81 +02 1,33E+02
Cl mg 4,53E+01 3,43E+01
E
COD mg 4,72 +01 3,30E+01

Cr ng 9,58E+01 6,65E+01
E
Cu ng 1,10 +01 7,92E+00
Hg ng 4,61E+00 3,24E+00
E
N-total mg 3,68 +00 2,58E+00
Pb ng 1,81E+02 1,34E+02
E
phenol g 6,00 +00 4,20E+00
SO4 g 3,27E+02 2,27E+02
E
Zn g 2,06 +01 1,42E+01
Table B4.3 Overview of costs and environmental impacts per scenario
112 of 127

SCENARIO Landf NOW R15 R25y R35y R50y R25g R35g R50g R35y R50y R10i R10m
HE HE

COSTS unit
EURO 0.174 0.254 0.204 0.354 0.480 0.669 0.310 0.413 0.531 0.695 0.726 0.203 0.315

IMPACT unit
EDP y-1 E15 3.8E-03 -4.0E-02 -1.8E-01 -1.7E-01 -1.4E-01 -1.1E-01 -1.6E-01 -1.2E-01 -7.8E-02 -8.1E-02 -8.3E-02 -1.8E-01 -1.6E-01
ADP y-1 E15 0.0E+00 -4.8E-06 7.0E-07 4.3E-07 -3.0E-05 -6.2E-05 4.4E-07 -3.0E-05 -6.2E-05 -3.1E-05 -6.2E-05 1.3E-06 -1.6E-05
Ener GJ 9.2E-04 -1.2E-02 -3.0E-02 -3.1E-02 -2.9E-02 -2.8E-02 -3.0E-02 -2.7E-02 -2.4E-02 -3.4E-02 -3.0E-02 -2.7E-02 -2.3E-02
GWP Kg CO2 3.4E-01 3.1E-01 1.3E+00 1.1E+00 9.1E-01 6.1E-01 1.1E+00 9.8E-01 7.3E-01 3.8E-01 3.4E-01 1.4E+00 1.5E+00
ODP kg CFC11 7.8E-08 -3.8E-08 -1.8E-07 -5.3E-07 -4.6E-07 -5.7E-07 -5.3E-07 -4.7E-07 -5.9E-07 -2.8E-07 -4.8E-07 -2.2E-07 -2.3E-07
POCP kg C2H4 2.8E-04 -7.2E-04 -1.2E-03 -1.5E-03 -1.5E-03 -1.5E-03 -1.6E-03 -1.5E-03 -1.6E-03 -1.3E-03 -1.4E-03 -8.2E-04 -4.2E-04
AP Kg SO2 9.9E-04 -1.6E-03 -7.8E-03 -7.0E-03 -6.6E-03 -5.7E-03 -6.8E-03 -6.2E-03 -5.3E-03 -4.0E-03 -4.5E-03 -7.3E-03 -7.0E-03
NP Kg P 1.7E-04 2.0E-05 -2.7E-04 -2.2E-04 -2.0E-04 -1.7E-04 -2.3E-04 -2.4E-04 -2.4E-04 -1.2E-04 -1.3E-04 -2.3E-04 -2.0E-04
FW Kg FW 9.5E-01 6.6E-01 -3.1E-03 -3.1E-03 -6.4E-03 -9.8E-03 -3.1E-03 -6.4E-03 -9.8E-03 -6.6E-03 -9.8E-03 -1.8E-03 -2.6E-03
TW Kg TW 8.0E-03 1.4E-02 5.4E-02 4.5E-02 4.0E-02 3.1E-02 4.8E-02 4.4E-02 3.7E-02 2.1E-02 2.4E-02 5.5E-02 5.2E-02
AETP Kg 14 dichb 2.1E-01 -5.2E+00 -2.1E+01 -1.9E+01 -1.6E+01 -1.3E+01 -1.8E+01 -1.4E+01 -8.6E+00 -5.5E+01 -3.3E+01 -2.3E+01 -2.4E+01
HTP Kg 14 dichb 1.0E-02 2.2E-05 -4.2E-02 -6.2E-02 -5.0E-02 -4.6E-02 -5.5E-02 -3.6E-02 -2.6E-02 -8.7E-02 -6.5E-02 -5.3E-02 -6.0E-02
TNO-MEP R 2000/119
TNO-report

Appendices
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 113 of 127

Appendices

B.5 Impact assessment of scenarios

Results of the characterisation (contribution of collection, separation, application

and substitution) of separate scenarios, in terms of environmental impact asses-
ment, are presented in table B3.1 up to B3.20 inclusive.

Table B5.1 Impact assessment reference scenario Landfill (8.2, main report).

Environm. Unit Total Collection Separation Application Substitution

effect
EDP -1 3.8E-03 3.6E-03 0.0E+00 2.0E-04 0.0E+00
y E+15
ADP y-1 E+15 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00
Ener GJ 9.2E-04 8.7E-04 0.0E+00 4.8E-05 0.0E+00
GWP Kg CO2 3.4E-01 7.1E-02 0.0E+00 2.7E-01 0.0E+00
ODP Kg CFC11 7.8E-08 7.4E-08 0.0E+00 4.1E-09 0.0E+00
POCP Kg C2H4 2.8E-04 1.7E-04 0.0E+00 1.1E-04 0.0E+00
AP Kg SO2 9.9E-04 9.0E-04 0.0E+00 8.9E-05 0.0E+00
NP Kg P 1.7E-04 1.5E-04 0.0E+00 1.7E-05 0.0E+00
FW Kg FW 9.5E-01 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 9.5E-01 0.0E+00
TW Kg TW 8.0E-03 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 8.0E-03 0.0E+00
AETP Kg 14dichlb 2.1E-01 1.9E-01 0.0E+00 1.9E-02 0.0E+00
HTP Kg 14dichlb 1.0E-02 9.3E-03 0.0E+00 3.1E-03 0.0E+00

Table B5.2 Impact assessment reference scenario NOW (8.2, main report).

Environm. Unit Total Collection Separation Application Substitution

effect

EDP y-1 E+15 -4.0E-02 5.0E-03 8.1E-03 1.0E-02 -6.3E-02

ADP y-1 E+15 -4.8E-06 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 3.4E-07 -5.1E-06
Ener GJ -1.2E-02 1.2E-03 1.0E-03 1.3E-03 -1.5E-02
GWP Kg CO2 3.1E-01 9.9E-02 4.7E-02 5.7E-01 -4.3E-01
ODP Kg CFC11 -3.8E-08 1.0E-07 2.2E-08 1.6E-08 -1.8E-07
POCP Kg C2H4 -7.2E-04 2.3E-04 3.8E-05 9.1E-05 -1.1E-03
AP Kg SO2 -1.6E-03 1.3E-03 3.9E-04 4.4E-04 -3.7E-03
NP Kg P 2.0E-05 2.1E-04 3.6E-05 2.8E-05 -2.6E-04
FW Kg FW 6.6E-01 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 6.7E-01 -2.9E-03
TW Kg TW 1.4E-02 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.4E-02 -1.2E-05
AETP Kg 14dichlb -5.2E+00 2.7E-01 8.4E-01 1.2E+00 -7.5E+00
HTP Kg 14dichlb 2.2E-05 1.3E-02 5.5E-03 1.9E-02 -3.7E-02
 TNO-report

114 of 127 TNO-MEP R 2000/119

Appendices

Table B5.3 Impact assessment scenario R15 (8.2, main report).

Environm. Unit Total Collection Separation Application Substitution

effect

EDP y-1 E+15 -1.8E-01 4.9E-03 1.1E-03 2.0E-02 -2.0E-01

-1
ADP y E+15 7.0E-07 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 2.2E-06 -1.5E-06
Ener GJ -3.0E-02 1.2E-03 2.1E-04 2.6E-03 -3.4E-02
GWP Kg CO2 1.3E+00 9.8E-02 1.5E-02 2.5E+00 -1.3E+00
ODP Kg CFC11 -1.8E-07 1.0E-07 1.4E-08 2.5E-08 -3.2E-07
POCP Kg C2H4 -1.2E-03 2.3E-04 3.0E-05 1.0E-04 -1.6E-03
AP Kg SO2 -7.8E-03 1.2E-03 1.8E-04 1.0E-03 -1.0E-02
NP Kg P -2.7E-04 2.1E-04 2.8E-05 4.2E-05 -5.5E-04
FW Kg FW -3.1E-03 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 3.6E-04 -3.4E-03
TW Kg TW 5.4E-02 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 5.5E-02 -5.3E-04
AETP Kg 14dichlb -2.1E+01 2.6E-01 8.3E-02 3.1E+00 -2.4E+01
HTP Kg 14dichlb -4.2E-02 1.3E-02 1.9E-03 8.5E-02 -1.4E-01

Table B5.4 Impact assessment scenario R25y

Yellow bag collection MSW (8.2, main report).

Environm. Unit Total Collection Separation Application Substitution

effect

EDP y-1 E+15 -1.7E-01 5.9E-03 9.9E-03 1.9E-02 -2.1E-01

ADP y-1 E+15 4.3E-07 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 2.0E-06 -1.5E-06
Ener GJ -3.1E-02 1.4E-03 1.3E-03 2.5E-03 -3.7E-02
GWP Kg CO2 1.1E+00 1.2E-01 6.0E-02 2.2E+00 -1.3E+00
ODP Kg CFC11 -5.3E-07 1.2E-07 3.0E-08 2.4E-08 -7.0E-07
POCP Kg C2H4 -1.5E-03 2.8E-04 5.4E-05 4.0E-05 -1.9E-03
AP Kg SO2 -7.0E-03 1.5E-03 5.1E-04 9.5E-04 -1.0E-02
NP Kg P -2.2E-04 2.5E-04 5.1E-05 3.9E-05 -5.6E-04
FW Kg FW -3.1E-03 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 3.1E-04 -3.5E-03
TW Kg TW 4.5E-02 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 4.5E-02 -5.4E-04
AETP Kg 14dichlb -1.9E+01 3.1E-01 1.0E+00 2.9E+00 -2.3E+01
HTP Kg 14dichlb -6.2E-02 1.5E-02 7.0E-03 7.2E-02 -1.6E-01
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 115 of 127

Appendices

Table B5.5 Impact assessment scenario R35y

Yellow bag collection MSW (8.2, main report).

Environm. Unit Total Collection Separation Application Substitution

effect
-1
EDP y E+15 -1.4E-01 7.0E-03 1.7E-02 2.5E-02 -1.9E-01
-1
ADP y E+15 -3.0E-05 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.7E-06 -3.2E-05
Ener GJ -2.9E-02 1.7E-03 2.1E-03 3.1E-03 -3.6E-02
GWP Kg CO2 9.1E-01 1.4E-01 9.8E-02 1.9E+00 -1.3E+00
ODP Kg CFC11 -4.6E-07 1.4E-07 4.5E-08 3.1E-08 -6.8E-07
POCP Kg C2H4 -1.5E-03 3.2E-04 7.8E-05 3.6E-05 -1.9E-03
AP Kg SO2 -6.6E-03 1.8E-03 8.0E-04 1.1E-03 -1.0E-02
NP Kg P -2.0E-04 2.9E-04 7.6E-05 4.6E-05 -6.2E-04
FW Kg FW -6.4E-03 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 2.7E-04 -6.7E-03
TW Kg TW 4.0E-02 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 3.8E-02 2.3E-03
AETP Kg 14dichlb -1.6E+01 3.7E-01 1.7E+00 3.3E+00 -2.2E+01
HTP Kg 14dichlb -5.0E-02 1.8E-02 1.1E-02 6.5E-02 -1.4E-01

Table B5.6 Impact assessment scenario R50y

Yellow bag collection MSW (8.2, main report).

Environm. Unit Total Collection Separation Application Substitution

effect

EDP y-1 E+15 -1.1E-01 8.6E-03 2.7E-02 3.0E-02 -1.8E-01

ADP y-1 E+15 -6.2E-05 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.3E-06 -6.3E-05
Ener GJ -2.8E-02 2.1E-03 3.4E-03 3.7E-03 -3.7E-02
GWP Kg CO2 6.1E-01 1.7E-01 1.5E-01 1.5E+00 -1.2E+00
ODP Kg CFC11 -5.7E-07 1.8E-07 6.7E-08 3.7E-08 -8.5E-07
POCP Kg C2H4 -1.5E-03 4.0E-04 1.1E-04 4.1E-05 -2.1E-03
AP Kg SO2 -5.7E-03 2.2E-03 1.2E-03 1.1E-03 -1.0E-02
NP Kg P -1.7E-04 3.6E-04 1.1E-04 5.1E-05 -6.9E-04
FW Kg FW -9.8E-03 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 2.0E-04 -1.0E-02
TW Kg TW 3.1E-02 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 2.6E-02 5.1E-03
AETP Kg 14dichlb -1.3E+01 4.6E-01 2.9E+00 3.7E+00 -2.0E+01
HTP Kg 14dichlb -4.6E-02 2.2E-02 1.8E-02 5.2E-02 -1.4E-01
 TNO-report

116 of 127 TNO-MEP R 2000/119

Appendices

Table B5.7 Impact assessment scenario R25g

Grey bag collection MSW (11.1, main report).

Environm. Unit Total Collection Separation Application Substitution

effect
-1 E
EDP y E+15 -1.6E-01 5.0E-03 2.0 -02 1.9E-02 -2.1E-01
-1 E
ADP y E+15 4.4E-07 0.0E+00 0.0 +00 2.0E-06 -1.5E-06
Ener GJ -3.0E-02 1.2E-03 2.5E-03 2.5E-03 -3.7E-02
E
GWP Kg CO2 1.1E+00 1.0E-01 1.1 -01 2.2E+00 -1.3E+00
E
ODP Kg CFC11 -5.3E-07 1.0E-07 4.7 -08 2.4E-08 -7.0E-07
POCP Kg C2H4 -1.6E-03 2.3E-04 7.7E-05 3.0E-05 -1.9E-03
AP Kg SO2 -6.8E-03 1.3E-03 8.7E-04 9.6E-04 -9.9E-03
E
NP Kg P -2.3E-04 2.1E-04 7.6 -05 3.9E-05 -5.5E-04
FW Kg FW -3.1E-03 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 3.1E-04 -3.4E-03
E
TW Kg TW 4.8E-02 0.0E+00 0.0 +00 4.8E-02 -5.3E-04
E
AETP Kg 14dichlb -1.8E+01 2.7E-01 2.1 +00 2.9E+00 -2.3E+01
HTP Kg 14dichlb -5.5E-02 1.3E-02 1.3E-02 7.5E-02 -1.6E-01

Table B5.8 Impact assessment scenario R35g

Grey bag collection MSW (11.1, main report).

Environm. Unit Total Collection Separation Application Substitution

effect

EDP y-1 E+15 -1.2E-01 5.2E-03 3.8E-02 2.5E-02 -1.9E-01

ADP y-1 E+15 -3.0E-05 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.7E-06 -3.2E-05
Ener GJ -2.7E-02 1.3E-03 4.7E-03 3.1E-03 -3.6E-02
GWP Kg CO2 9.8E-01 1.0E-01 2.0E-01 1.9E+00 -1.2E+00
ODP Kg CFC11 -4.7E-07 1.1E-07 7.6E-08 3.1E-08 -6.8E-07
POCP Kg C2H4 -1.5E-03 2.4E-04 1.1E-04 3.6E-05 -1.9E-03
AP Kg SO2 -6.2E-03 1.3E-03 1.5E-03 1.1E-03 -1.0E-02
NP Kg P -2.4E-04 2.2E-04 1.1E-04 4.6E-05 -6.2E-04
FW Kg FW -6.4E-03 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 2.7E-04 -6.7E-03
TW Kg TW 4.4E-02 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 4.1E-02 2.3E-03
AETP Kg 14dichlb -1.4E+01 2.7E-01 4.1E+00 3.4E+00 -2.2E+01
HTP Kg 14dichlb -3.6E-02 1.3E-02 2.3E-02 7.0E-02 -1.4E-01
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 117 of 127

Appendices

Table B5.9 Impact assesament scenario R50g

Grey bag collection MSW (11.1, main report).

Environm. Unit Total Collection Separation Application Substitution

effect
-1 E
EDP y E+15 -7.8E-02 5.5 -03 6.2E-02 3.0E-02 -1.8E-01
-1 E
ADP y E+15 -6.2E-05 0.0 +00 0.0E+00 1.3E-06 -6.3E-05
Ener GJ -2.4E-02 1.3E-03 7.5E-03 3.7E-03 -3.7E-02
E
GWP Kg CO2 7.3E-01 1.1 -01 3.2E-01 1.5E+00 -1.2E+00
E
ODP Kg CFC11 -5.9E-07 1.1 -07 1.1E-07 3.8E-08 -8.5E-07
POCP Kg C2H4 -1.6E-03 2.5E-04 1.6E-04 5.2E-05 -2.1E-03
AP Kg SO2 -5.3E-03 1.4E-03 2.4E-03 1.2E-03 -1.0E-02
NP Kg P -2.4E-04 2.3E-04 1.7E-04 5.1E-05 -6.8E-04
FW Kg FW -9.8E-03 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 2.1E-04 -1.0E-02
TW Kg TW 3.7E-02 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 3.2E-02 5.1E-03
AETP Kg 14dichlb -8.6E+00 2.9E-01 6.6E+00 3.8E+00 -1.9E+01
HTP Kg 14dichlb -2.6E-02 1.4E-02 3.6E-02 6.0E-02 -1.4E-01

Table B5.10 Impact assessment scenario R35y HE

Sensitivity analysis (8.4.1, main report).

Environm. Unit Total Collection Separation Application Substitution

effect

EDP y-1 E+15 -8.1E-02 1.0E-02 3.4E-02 2.4E-02 -1.5E-01

-1
ADP y E+15 -3.1E-05 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 8.8E-07 -3.2E-05
Ener GJ -3.4E-02 2.4E-03 4.1E-03 2.9E-03 -4.3E-02
GWP Kg CO2 3.8E-01 2.0E-01 1.8E-01 1.1E+00 -1.1E+00
ODP Kg CFC11 -2.8E-07 2.1E-07 7.1E-08 3.0E-08 -5.9E-07
POCP Kg C2H4 -1.3E-03 4.7E-04 1.1E-04 3.2E-05 -1.9E-03
AP Kg SO2 -4.0E-03 2.5E-03 1.4E-03 8.9E-04 -8.8E-03
NP Kg P -1.2E-04 4.2E-04 1.1E-04 4.0E-05 -6.9E-04
FW Kg FW -6.6E-03 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.4E-04 -6.7E-03
TW Kg TW 2.1E-02 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.9E-02 2.3E-03
AETP Kg 14dichlb -5.5E+01 5.3E-01 3.5E+00 2.9E+00 -6.2E+01
HTP Kg 14dichlb -8.7E-02 2.6E-02 2.1E-02 3.9E-02 -1.7E-01
 TNO-report

118 of 127 TNO-MEP R 2000/119

Appendices

Table B5.11 Impact assessment scenario R50y HE

Sensitivity analysis (8.4.1, main report).

Environm. Unit Total Collection Separation Application Substitution

effect
-1 E
EDP y E+15 -8.3E-02 1.0 -02 3.4E-02 3.0E-02 -1.6E-01
-1 E
ADP y E+15 -6.2E-05 0.0 +00 0.0E+00 8.8E-07 -6.3E-05
Ener GJ -3.0E-02 2.4E-03 4.2E-03 3.6E-03 -4.1E-02
E
GWP Kg CO2 3.4E-01 2.0 -01 1.9E-01 1.1E+00 -1.1E+00
E
ODP Kg CFC11 -4.8E-07 2.1 -07 7.8E-08 3.7E-08 -8.1E-07
POCP Kg C2H4 -1.4E-03 4.7E-04 1.2E-04 4.0E-05 -2.1E-03
AP Kg SO2 -4.5E-03 2.5E-03 1.5E-03 1.1E-03 -9.6E-03
E
NP Kg P -1.3E-04 4.2 -04 1.2E-04 4.8E-05 -7.3E-04
FW Kg FW -9.8E-03 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.4E-04 -1.0E-02
E
TW Kg TW 2.4E-02 0.0 +00 0.0E+00 1.9E-02 5.1E-03
E
AETP Kg 14dichlb -3.3E+01 5.3 -01 3.6E+00 3.5E+00 -4.0E+01
HTP Kg 14dichlb -6.5E-02 2.6E-02 2.2E-02 4.2E-02 -1.5E-01

Table B5.12 Impact assessment scenario R15 heat

Sensitivity analysis, MSWI with heat recovery (8.4.2, main report).

Environm. Unit Total Collection Separation Application Substitution

effect

EDP y-1 E+15 -9.2E-02 4.9E-03 1.1E-03 2.0E-02 -1.2E-01

ADP y-1 E+15 7.0E-07 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 2.2E-06 -1.5E-06
Ener GJ -3.3E-02 1.2E-03 2.1E-04 2.6E-03 -3.7E-02
GWP Kg CO2 4.5E-01 9.8E-02 1.5E-02 2.5E+00 -2.1E+00
ODP Kg CFC11 -7.4E-07 1.0E-07 1.4E-08 2.5E-08 -8.8E-07
POCP Kg C2H4 -1.8E-03 2.3E-04 3.0E-05 1.0E-04 -2.1E-03
AP Kg SO2 -1.7E-02 1.2E-03 1.8E-04 1.2E-03 -2.0E-02
NP Kg P -5.0E-04 2.1E-04 2.8E-05 5.7E-05 -7.9E-04
FW Kg FW -3.1E-03 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 3.6E-04 -3.4E-03
TW Kg TW 5.8E-02 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 5.8E-02 -5.3E-04
AETP Kg 14dichlb -5.0E+01 2.6E-01 8.3E-02 3.7E+00 -5.4E+01
HTP Kg 14dichlb -3.1E-01 1.3E-02 1.9E-03 8.4E-02 -4.1E-01
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 119 of 127

Appendices

Table B5.13 Impact assessment scenario R25y heat

Sensitivity analysis, MSWI with heat recovery (8.4.2, main report).

Environm. Unit Total Collection Separation Application Substitution

effect
-1
EDP y E+15 -9.6E-02 5.9E-03 9.9E-03 1.9E-02 -1.3E-01
-1
ADP y E+15 4.3E-07 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 2.0E-06 -1.5E-06
Ener GJ -3.4E-02 1.4E-03 1.3E-03 2.4E-03 -3.9E-02
GWP Kg CO2 3.8E-01 1.2E-01 6.0E-02 2.2E+00 -2.0E+00
ODP Kg CFC11 -1.0E-06 1.2E-07 3.0E-08 2.4E-08 -1.2E-06
POCP Kg C2H4 -2.0E-03 2.8E-04 5.4E-05 9.3E-05 -2.4E-03
AP Kg SO2 -1.5E-02 1.5E-03 5.1E-04 1.1E-03 -1.9E-02
NP Kg P -4.2E-04 2.5E-04 5.1E-05 5.3E-05 -7.8E-04
FW Kg FW -3.1E-03 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 3.1E-04 -3.5E-03
TW Kg TW 4.7E-02 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 4.8E-02 -5.4E-04
AETP Kg 14dichlb -4.5E+01 3.1E-01 1.0E+00 3.4E+00 -4.9E+01
HTP Kg 14dichlb -3.0E-01 1.5E-02 7.0E-03 7.2E-02 -3.9E-01

Table B5.14 Impact assessment scenario R35y heat

Sensitivity analysis, MSWI with heat recovery (8.4.2, main report).

Environm. Unit Total Collection Separation Application Substitution

effect

EDP y-1 E+15 -7.8E-02 7.0E-03 1.7E-02 2.5E-02 -1.3E-01

ADP y-1 E+15 -3.0E-05 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.7E-06 -3.2E-05
Ener GJ -3.2E-02 1.7E-03 2.1E-03 3.1E-03 -3.9E-02
GWP Kg CO2 2.8E-01 1.4E-01 9.8E-02 1.9E+00 -1.9E+00
ODP Kg CFC11 -8.9E-07 1.4E-07 4.5E-08 3.1E-08 -1.1E-06
POCP Kg C2H4 -1.8E-03 3.2E-04 7.8E-05 9.1E-05 -2.3E-03
AP Kg SO2 -1.4E-02 1.8E-03 8.0E-04 1.2E-03 -1.8E-02
NP Kg P -3.8E-04 2.9E-04 7.6E-05 5.7E-05 -8.1E-04
FW Kg FW -6.4E-03 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 2.7E-04 -6.7E-03
TW Kg TW 4.2E-02 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 4.0E-02 2.3E-03
AETP Kg 14dichlb -3.9E+01 3.7E-01 1.7E+00 3.8E+00 -4.5E+01
HTP Kg 14dichlb -2.6E-01 1.8E-02 1.1E-02 6.5E-02 -3.5E-01
 TNO-report

120 of 127 TNO-MEP R 2000/119

Appendices

Table B5.15 Impact assessment scenario R50y heat

Sensitivity analysis, MSWI with heat recovery (8.4.2, main report).

Environm. Unit Total Collection Separation Application Substitution

effect
-1
EDP y E+15 -6.2E-02 8.6E-03 2.7E-02 3.0E-02 -1.3E-01
-1
ADP y E+15 -6.2E-05 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.3E-06 -6.3E-05
Ener GJ -2.9E-02 2.1E-03 3.4E-03 3.6E-03 -3.9E-02
GWP Kg CO2 1.3E-01 1.7E-01 1.5E-01 1.5E+00 -1.7E+00
ODP Kg CFC11 -8.9E-07 1.8E-07 6.7E-08 3.7E-08 -1.2E-06
POCP Kg C2H4 -1.8E-03 4.0E-04 1.1E-04 8.3E-05 -2.4E-03
AP Kg SO2 -1.1E-02 2.2E-03 1.2E-03 1.2E-03 -1.6E-02
NP Kg P -3.0E-04 3.6E-04 1.1E-04 6.0E-05 -8.3E-04
FW Kg FW -9.8E-03 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 2.0E-04 -1.0E-02
TW Kg TW 3.2E-02 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 2.7E-02 -5.1E-03
AETP Kg 14dichlb -3.0E+01 4.6E-01 2.9E+00 4.0E+00 -3.7E+01
HTP Kg 14dichlb -2.0E-01 2.2E-02 1.8E-02 5.2E-02 -2.9E-01

Table B5.16 Impact assesment scenario R25y gas

Sensitivity analysis, feedstock recycling by gasification (8.4.3, main report).

Environm. Unit Total Collection Separation Application Substitution

effect

EDP y-1 E+15 -1.6E-01 5.9E-03 9.9E-03 1.9E-02 -1.9E-01

ADP y-1 E+15 4.3E-07 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 2.0E-06 -1.5E-06
Ener GJ -3.0E-02 1.4E-03 1.3E-03 2.5E-03 -3.6E-02
GWP Kg CO2 1.2E+00 1.2E-01 6.0E-02 2.2E+00 -1.2E+00
ODP Kg CFC11 -1.0E-07 1.2E-07 3.0E-08 2.4E-08 -2.8E-07
POCP Kg C2H4 -1.1E-03 2.8E-04 5.4E-05 9.3E-05 -1.6E-03
AP Kg SO2 -6.6E-03 1.5E-03 5.1E-04 9.5E-04 -9.6E-03
NP Kg P -2.1E-04 2.5E-04 5.1E-05 3.9E-05 -5.5E-04
FW Kg FW -1.5E-03 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 3.1E-04 -1.8E-03
TW Kg TW 4.5E-02 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 4.5E-02 -5.4E-04
AETP Kg 14dichlb -1.7E+01 3.1E-01 1.0E+00 2.9E+00 -2.1E+01
HTP Kg 14dichlb -5.5E-02 1.5E-02 7.0E-03 7.2E-02 -1.5E-01
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 121 of 127

Appendices

Table B5.17 Impact assesment scenario R35y gas

Sensitivity analysis, feedstock recycling by gasification (8.4.3, main report).

Environm. Unit Total Collection Separation Application Substitution

effect
-1
EDP y E+15 -1.3E-01 7.0E-03 1.7E-02 2.5E-02 -1.8E-01
-1
ADP y E+15 -3.0E-05 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.7E-06 -3.2E-05
Ener GJ -2.8E-02 1.7E-03 2.1E-03 3.1E-03 -3.5E-02
GWP Kg CO2 9.9E-01 1.4E-01 9.8E-02 1.9E+00 -1.2E+00
ODP Kg CFC11 -4.1E-08 1.4E-07 4.5E-08 3.1E-08 -2.6E-07
POCP Kg C2H4 -1.1E-03 3.2E-04 7.8E-05 9.1E-05 -1.6E-03
AP Kg SO2 -6.2E-03 1.8E-03 8.0E-04 1.1E-03 -9.8E-03
NP Kg P -2.0E-04 2.9E-04 7.6E-05 4.6E-05 -6.1E-04
FW Kg FW -4.7E-03 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 2.7E-04 -5.0E-03
TW Kg TW 4.0E-02 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 3.8E-02 2.3E-03
AETP Kg 14dichlb -1.4E+01 3.7E-01 1.7E+00 3.3E+00 -2.0E+01
HTP Kg 14dichlb -4.3E-02 1.8E-02 1.1E-02 6.5E-02 -1.4E-01

Table B5.18 Impact assesment scenario R50y gas

Sensitivity analysis, feedstock recycling by gasification (8.4.3, main report).

Environm. Unit Total Collection Separation Application Substitution

effect

EDP y-1 E+15 -9.3E-02 8.6E-03 2.7E-02 3.0E-02 -1.6E-01

ADP y-1 E+15 -6.2E-05 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.3E-06 -6.3E-05
Ener GJ -2.6E-02 2.1E-03 3.4E-03 3.7E-03 -3.5E-02
GWP Kg CO2 7.4E-01 1.7E-01 1.5E-01 1.5E+00 -1.1E+00
ODP Kg CFC11 6.3E-08 1.8E-07 6.7E-08 3.7E-08 -2.2E-07
POCP Kg C2H4 -9.6E-04 4.0E-04 1.1E-04 8.3E-05 -1.6E-03
AP Kg SO2 -5.1E-03 2.2E-03 1.2E-03 1.1E-03 -9.6E-03
NP Kg P -1.5E-04 3.6E-04 1.1E-04 5.1E-05 -6.7E-04
FW Kg FW -7.3E-03 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 2.0E-04 -7.5E-03
TW Kg TW 3.1E-02 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 2.6E-02 5.1E-03
AETP Kg 14dichlb -9.7E+00 4.6E-01 2.9E+00 3.7E+00 -1.7E+01
HTP Kg 14dichlb -3.6E-02 2.2E-02 1.8E-02 5.2E-02 -1.3E-01
 TNO-report

122 of 127 TNO-MEP R 2000/119

Appendices

Table B5.19 Impact assessment scenario R10m

Sensititivity analysis (11.4, main report).

Environm. Unit Total Collection Separation Application Substitution

effect

EDP y-1 E+15 -1.6E-01 4.6E-03 5.7E-03 1.6E-02 -1.9E-01

ADP y-1 E+15 -1.6E-05 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 2.3E-06 -1.9E-05
Ener GJ -2.3E-02 1.1E-03 7.1E-04 2.2E-03 -2.7E-02
GWP Kg CO2 1.5E+00 9.1E-02 3.2E-02 2.6E+00 -1.2E+00
ODP Kg CFC11 -2.3E-07 9.5E-08 1.4E-08 2.0E-08 -3.6E-07
POCP Kg C2H4 -4.2E-04 2.1E-04 2.2E-05 1.0E-04 -7.7E-04
AP Kg SO2 -7.0E-03 1.2E-03 2.5E-04 9.1E-04 -9.3E-03
NP Kg P -2.0E-04 1.9E-04 2.2E-05 3.7E-05 -4.6E-04
FW Kg FW -2.6E-03 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 3.8E-04 -2.9E-03
TW Kg TW 5.2E-02 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 5.0E-02 1.5E-03
AETP Kg 14dichlb -2.4E+01 2.4E-01 6.0E-01 2.6E+00 -2.7E+01
HTP Kg 14dichlb -6.0E-02 1.2E-02 3.7E-03 7.8E-02 -1.5E-01

Table B5.20 Impact assessment scenario R10i

Sensititivity analysis (11.4, main report).

Environm. Unit Total Collection Separation Application Substitution

effect

EDP y-1 E+15 -1.8E-01 4.4E-03 5.7E-04 1.7E-02 -2.0E-01

-1
ADP y E+15 1.3E-06 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 2.3E-06 -1.0E-06
Ener GJ -2.7E-02 1.1E-03 1.2E-04 2.3E-03 -3.1E-02
GWP Kg CO2 1.4E+00 8.7E-02 9.1E-03 2.6E+00 -1.2E+00
ODP Kg CFC11 -2.2E-07 9.0E-08 8.9E-09 2.1E-08 -3.4E-07
POCP Kg C2H4 -8.2E-04 2.0E-04 2.0E-05 4.2E-05 -1.1E-03
AP Kg SO2 -7.3E-03 1.1E-03 1.1E-04 9.6E-04 -9.4E-03
NP Kg P -2.3E-04 1.8E-04 1.8E-05 3.8E-05 -4.7E-04
FW Kg FW -1.8E-03 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 3.8E-04 -2.2E-03
TW Kg TW 5.5E-02 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 5.5E-02 -3.6E-04
AETP Kg 14dichlb -2.3E+01 2.3E-01 3.8E-02 2.8E+00 -2.6E+01
HTP Kg 14dichlb -5.3E-02 1.1E-02 1.2E-03 8.4E-02 -1.5E-01
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 123 of 127

Appendices

C. LCA methodological aspects

C.1 Impact Assessment

The impact assessment method in this study is mainly based on the CML (I)
method (6). Some environmental effectes have been adapted in this study and some
special categories have been added, because new knowledge has been developed
since the publishing of CML (6). Table C1.1. gives an overview of environmental
effects and categories and the adaptions in this study.

Explanation:

Depletion of scarce resources (ADP and EDP):

CLM (6) originally discriminates between depletion of abiotic and biotic re-
sources. The biotic resources item is not worked out yet in a satisfying way and
generally only the abiotic depletion is calculated in LCAs. Recent LCA studies
show a different way of implementing the abiotic depletion.
A German LCA study [32] takes only into account depletion of fossil fuel res-
sources, whereas the resources item in Scandinavian studies ([13], [33], [36]) in-
cludes both fuels and minerals. As a result in the Scandinavian studies the resource
items are dominated by depletion of mineral resources (scarce metals).
Consequently in this study the depletion of fuel resources EDP has been calculated
separately from the depletion of minerals ADP. The characterisation method for
ADP and EDP is derived from the background document in CML (6). The default
depletion of abiotic resources by CML (6) is based on world reserves of some spe-
cic metals resources and fossil fuels. In this study characteristion factors for ADP
and EDP for minerals and primary fuels are based on the product of reciproque
world (technical) reserves and the reciciproque world reserve/depletion ratio
(r/d). This characterisation method is indicated as most adequate in both CML (6,
background document) and in de new draft update of the CML method (37). In this
study the data of world reserves and reserve/depletion ratios are based on USGS
statistics (webpage minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/) whereas fuel resource statistics
are derived from fuel industry (BP webpage : www.bpamoco.com/worldenergy/).

Human toxicity and aquatic ecotoxicity (HTP and AETP):

CLM (6) originally assessed the toxicity aspect (simply) by an effect factor, ne-
glecting life time differences, path ways differences etc. For that reason there was a
lot of discussion about the toxicity assesment method by CML (6) .
In the new (draft) update of the CML method a more comprehensive
impact assesment method for human toxicity and aquatic ecotoxicity is presented
(7, 37). Aquatic eco toxicity potential (EATP) and human toxicity potential (HTP)
both are calculated in terms of equivalents of 1,4 dichloro benzene, based on
USES 2 model (a kind of model world including partitioning and fate of sub-
stances).
 TNO-report

124 of 127 TNO-MEP R 2000/119

Appendices

Table C1.1 Overview of environmental effects and categories

Bold Italic = adaptated in this study

Environmental effects Abbreviation Dimension

and categories

A: Effects
adapted in this study
- Mineral Resources Depletion Potential ADP Y 1 E+15
- Fuel Resources Depletion Potential EDP Y 1 E+15
- Human Toxicity Potential HTP kg eq.14dichlobenz.
- Aquatic Eco toxicity Potential AETP kg eq.14dichlobenz.

B: Effects
defined by CML (6)
- Global Warming GWP Kg eq. CO2
- Ozone Depletion Potential ODP Kg eq. CFC11
- Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential POCP kg eq. C2H4
- Acidification Potential AP kg eq. SO2
- Nutrification Potential NP kg eq. PO4

C: Special categories
adapted in this study
- Final Waste FW Kg
- Specific final Waste (hazardous waste) TW Kg
- Cumulative energy requirement ENER GJ
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 125 of 127

Appendices

Cumulative energy requirement:

Total energy requirement is accounted partially by depletion of abiotic resources.
Renewable energy and secundary energy are not accounted by depletion of abiotic
resources. In some LCA studies (e.g. 5, 35, 36) the cumulative energy item is ac-
counted separately next to the abiotic resources depletion item. In this study the
cumulative energy item is dealt with separately and cumulative energy is defined as
the sum of energy consumptions (renewable, non-renewable, primary, etc).
The characterisation factor for energy in this study is GJ (based on 35).

Final (hazardous) waste:

Final waste (to deposit) is not defined as impact assessment item in the CML
method originally. However, the item final waste is accounted in a lot of (interna-
tional) LCA studies (e.g. 5, 33., 34, 35, 36). In this study final waste (TW, and FW)
is defined as waste (kg) to deposit.
Note: In some recent studies (e.g. 32) the final waste item is translated to area oc-
cupation but this methodical evaluation is still in development.

Remark for global warming (GWP)

In this study the impact assesment for the global warming item is according to the
factors presented by CML (6). New GWP factors presented by the IPPC 1997 con-
vention are not taken into account in this study.
Differences will have a minor effect in this study, because these differences are for
CH4 and N2O emissions and not for CO2 emissions. Consequently the NOW sce-
nario and the landfill scenario will show a slight increase of the GWP impact
scores in the case of IPPC 1997 factors.
 TNO-report

126 of 127 TNO-MEP R 2000/119

Appendices

C.2 Normalisation

By multiplying the absolute environmental effects with normalisation factors

scores are expressed as relative scores (main report chapter 2.7). Normalisation
factors in this study are based on the European area as far as possible. For practical
reasons these factors are expressed as European totals per capita per year.
Because of the lack of data for the calculation of the European totals per capita per
year some extrapolations have been made in this study. For some environmental ef-
fects (for example ecotoxicity) there are no European totals reported in literature
and consequently extrapolations are:
In this study for ADP, NP, AETP and HTP the Dutch totals per capita per year
((9), (10), (31)) are extrapolated as the European totals.
For EDP, GWP, ODP, POCP and AP the German totals per capita per year
(12) are extrapolated as the European totals.
For ENER, FW and TW the direct European totals per capita per year (9) are
derived from the literature.

Especially for final waste (FW) and final hazardous waste (TW) there exists a rela-
tively large uncertainity. Reported waste data per capita will vary whithin a large
range. The total amount of final waste is dependent of the definition of waste,
recycling and final (a.o. 8). These definitions differ to some extent per Euro-
pean country.

The basic data for normalisation factors applied with respect to the ECO-efficiency
calculations (main report, table 10.3.2) are shown in table C2.1. For final waste
(FW) and final hazardous waste (TW) a relatively large range of values is incor-
perated.

According these data normalsation sets for three reference areas are defined for ex-
cecution of the ECO-efficiency calculations:
The European area (extrapolated for ADP, NP, AETP, HTP, EDP, GWP, ODP,
POCP and AP).
The German area (extrapolated for ADP, NP, AETP, HTP)
The Dutch area.

Total impacts for the three reference areas derived (extrapolated) from data per
capita, are summarised in table C2.2.
TNO-report

TNO-MEP R 2000/119 127 of 127

Appendices

Table C2.1 Basic data for normalisation factors.

Load Europe Germany Netherlands

per capita per year N1 N2 N3
EDP y-1 E+15 625 2) 625 2) 667 1)
ADP y-1 E+15 2323 1) 2323 1) 2323 1)
ENER GJ 138 3) 158 2) 200 1)
GWP Kg CO2 11765 2) 11765 2) 16000 1)
ODP Kg CFC11 0.088 2) 0.088 2) 0.29 1)
POCP Kg C2H4 9.1 2) 9.1 2) 9.7 1)
AP Kg SO2 49 2) 49 2) 52 1)
NP Kg P 51 1) 51 1) 51 1)
FW Kg FW 1250 3) 2400 2) 500 1)
TW Kg TW 80 3) 500 2) 40 1)
AETP Kg 14dichlb 71500 1) 71500 1) 71500 1)
HTP Kg 14dichlb 10500 1) 10500 1) 10500 1)
1
) Based on Dutch data with reference year 1995 ((9), (10), (31)).
2
) Based on German data with reference 1996 (12).
3
) Based on European data with reference 1990-1996 ((8), (9), (11)).

Table C2.2 (Extrapolated) total environmental impacts per year for the three.
reference areas for normalisation.

Total per year Europe Germany Netherlands

N1 N2 N3
EDP y-1 E+15 2.5E+11 5.6E+10 1.0E+10
ADP y-1 E+15 9.3E+11 2.1E+11 3.5E+10
ENER GJ 5.5E+10 1.4E+10 3.0E+09
GWP Kg CO2 4.7E+12 1.1E+12 2.4E+11
ODP Kg CFC11 3.5E+07 8.0E+06 4.4E+06
POCP Kg C2H4 3.6E+09 8.2E+08 1.5E+08
AP Kg SO2 1.9E+10 4.4E+09 7.8E+08
NP Kg P 2.1E+10 4.6E+09 7.7E+08
FW Kg FW 5.0E+11 2.2E+11 7.5E+09
TW kg TW 3.2E+10 4.5E+10 6.0E+08
AETP Kg 14dichlb 2.9E+13 6.4E+12 1.1E+12
HTP Kg 14dichlb 4.2E+12 9.5E+11 1.6E+11