Assessing the life cycle environmental impacts of bulky waste - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Assessing the life cycle environmental impacts of bulky waste management in Brussels E. T owa, V. Zeller, W. M.J. Achten 27/06/2019 This research is conducted in the frame of the BRUCETRA project funded by the Brussels’ capital region – Innoviris (2015-PRFB-3a)

ABP: Annual report 2014 Brussels’ context • Current management of bulky waste in Brussels • mixed, i.e. non-recyclable, recyclable and potentially reusable materials • Incineration with energy recovery most important treatment • Bulky waste is one of the T reatment of bulky waste in Brussels (2014) priority fmows within the regional programme for 2,40% 39,90% circular economy 40.000 t per year 57,70% Preparation for reuse Recycling Incineration 2 Context Results Conclusions Method

Bulky waste collection in Brussels Public • T wo main actors Tons, 2014 SEOs Total actors • Public actor 19,845 179 20,024 Classical collection • Social economy organizations (SEOs) Citizen deposit at CAS or 13,145 357 13,502 SEOs centres • Three collection types 0 1,238 1,238 Separate collection • Mixed collection on demand 32,990 1,774 34,76 Total 4 • Separate collection of items with a reuse potential • Bringing systems: to container parks or SEO centres 3 Context Results Conclusions Method

Bulky waste defjnition • Bulky items that are donated or resold are not considered as waste • Bulky waste= waste that does not fjt into containers & bags Categories included: • Furniture and other items such as bikes, strollers, prams, ironing boards, toys, kitchen items (plates, cups, vases), sport items, sanitary items, etc.) Categories excluded: • WEEE, textiles, mattresses Material composition Material composition (public collector) Material composition (SEO) Glass; 2,10% Ceramics; 2,10% Iron; 3,80%Aluminium; 2,50% Iron; 14,50% Polyvinyl chloride; Ceramics; 11,79% Aluminium; 8,30% 4,80% Polyethylene; 1,00% Polyvinyl chloride; Glass; 8,09% 5,60% Polypropylene; Polypropylene; 4,50% 3,80% Wood; 61,80% Polyethylene; 1,10% Wood; 64,24% 4 Context Results Conclusions Method

Environmental performance of bulky waste management Waste hierarchy suffjcient? • → Life cycle assessment to verify i) CE potential of bulky waste management in Brussels? ii) Life cycle-based environmental impacts of difgerent bulky waste management system? < 5 Context Results Conclusions Method

MFA & scenario development Material fmow analyses • Collection of waste statistics from difgerent entities • Decomposition • Sankey that shows the management chain . CE potential • Potential for reuse • Potential for recycling • Potential for separate collection Evaluation of scenarios with LCA • Data on transport requirements • Data on waste treatment processes • Data on substitution rate (reuse & recycling) • → Impact assessment 6 Context Results Conclusions Method

CE scenarios- Scenario 1 FU: treatment of the total bulky waste stream in Brussels (~ 34.000 ton) Scenario 1: • Improved sorting at the civic amenity sites to increase items for reuse and recycling 7 Context Results Conclusions Method

CE scenarios- Scenario 2 Scenario 2: Potential of separate collection 8 Context Results Conclusions Method

Evaluation of scenarios with life cycle assessment Approach for co-products: System boundary: ‘Bin to grave’ boundary substitution Waste Use phase Waste collection treatment Reusable Avoided products & end of facility lorry item life Process inputs Diesel (eletricity, Use phase diesel, natural Recycled Avoided primary Road gas, chemicals, & end of materials production life etc.) Collection Waste Bulky Bulky Conversion Avoided el and treatment Electricity items waste process production transport process T ransport and Avoided material Final fjnal production (for ex. residuals treatment gravel) • Substitution potential for reuse: full substitution, partial substitution (quality/LT) or no substitution • Substitution potential for recycable materials: substitution rates (for example: metals 1:1, plastic 1:0.9) (Rigamonti 2009) 9 Context Results Conclusions Method

Impact assessment DAL Ys (disability adjusted life years), represents the years that are lost or that a person is disabled due to a disease or accident. PDF : Potentially disappeared fraction of species∙m2∙year: local relative species loss in terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems, respectively, integrated over space and time The unit for resource scarcity is dollars ($) , which represents the extra costs involved for future mineral and fossil resource extraction Huijbregts et al. 2017: ReCiPe2016: a harmonised life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and 10 endpoint level Context Results Conclusions Method

Impact assessment at process level Damage on human Damage on ecosystems Damage on ressource DALY per ton Incineration: health 3E-05 60 availbaility Quicklime 40 3E-05 Impacts: incineration process 0,01 Metal scrap recovered 20 2E-05 Species*yr/ per ton 0,01 Credits: electricity credit Avoided gravel 0 USD/ per ton 2E-05 0,01 Transport ash -20 1E-05 Sodium hydroxide 0,01 Net result: impacts for HH & ES, savings in -40 5E-06 Other process inputs 0 -60 terms of ressource use Waste collection 0E+00 0 -80 S p e c i e s * y r p e r t o n Facility -5E-06 0 -100 Natural gas -120 -1E-05 0 Recycling: 0,03 500 Avoided ceramics 0,02 Avoided glass Impacts: Aluminium & wood 0 0,01 Avoided wood Y per ton -500 0 recycling Avoided plastic USD per ton -0,01 -1000 Avoided iron Credits: avoided Al, wood & 1E-04 -0,02 Avoided aluminium -1500 Net result: savings for all impacts -0,03 5E-05 plastic Waste collection DAL -0,04 0E+00 -2000 Recycling ceramics -0,05 -5E-05 Recycling glass -2500 -0,06 Recycling wood -1E-04 -0,07 -3000 Sp ecies*yr p er to n Plastic recycling -2E-04 USD per ton 2E-02 Reuse: 500 Avoided ceramics 0E+00 0 Avoided glass • Impacts: Preparation for reuse -500 -2E-02 5E-05 Avoided wood DAILY per ton -1.000 • Avoided plastic Credits: avoided Al, wood & plastic 0E+00 -4E-02 -1.500 Avoided iron -5E-05 -6E-02 -2.000 Avoided aluminium -1E-04 Net result: savings for all impacts -2.500 -8E-02 Waste collection -2E-04 -3.000 Preparation for reuse -1E-01 -2E-04 -3.500 Net impact -1E-01 11 -3E-04 -4.000 Context Results Conclusions Method

Impact assessment of scenarios Human health impacts Impacts on ecosystems Ressource use 400 1,00E+07 1 200 0,5 0,00E+00 0 0 -200 -1,00E+07 -0,5 US D per yr Y per yr -400 Species yr -1 -600 -2,00E+07 -800 -1,5 DAL -3,00E+07 -1000 -2 -1200 -4,00E+07 -2,5 -1400 -3 -5,00E+07 -1600 Scenario Ref Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario Ref Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario Ref Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Waste collection Reuse -avoided products Avoided ceramics Avoided glass Avoided wood Avoided plastic Avoided Fe Avoided AL Avoided el Reuse Recyling ceramics Recyling glass Recyling wood Recycling plastic Recyling Fe Recycling Al Incineration Net result 12 Context Results Conclusions Method

Discussion of key parameters- sensitivity Ressource use Reuse potential: 1,00E+07 0,00E+00 • Sensitivity analysis in the article -1,00E+07 US D per yr • Market potential of reuse? -2,00E+07 • Substitution rate for reused -3,00E+07 products? -4,00E+07 • Substitution or not? -5,00E+07 • Partial substitution? Scenario BAU Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Limits of the study: • A thorough assessment of reuse potential needs a product based approach • Proxy data for the composition of mixed bulky waste • Proxy data for the preparation of reuse • Some LC stages not (yet) included 13 Context Results Conclusions Method

Conclusions & outlook • CE potential is currently underexploited • CE scenarios show a high potential for environmental savings, especially in terms of resource use • For a signifjcant improvement, a change in the collection system is required • → more information about the quality of bulky waste stream as well as consumer demand & behaviour is needed 14 Context Results Conclusions Method

Thank you for your attention CONTACT INFORMATION Vanessa Zeller , PhD Postdoctoral Researcher Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB) IGEAT-GEST e Avenue F .D. Roosevelt, 50 (CP 165/63), 1050 Brussels (Belgium) T el : +32 (0)2 650 4333 Mail : vzeller@ulb.ac.be This research is conducted in the frame of the BRUCETRA project funded by the Brussels’ capital region – Innoviris (2015-PRFB-3a)