Trends in recycling policy and technology
null
Recycling means ‘any recovery operation by which waste materials are reprocessed into products, materials or substances whether for the original or other purposes. It includes the reprocessing of organic material but does not include energy recovery and the reprocessing into materials that are to be used as fuels or for backfilling operations.’
This definition comes from the European Council’s common position on revising the European Waste Framework Directive (WFD) and it is repeated in the position statement of the European Parliament¹, which voted in June this year on the second reading of the revised WFD.
The complexity of this definition brings out an important starting point for any discussion about recycling trends. There are many factors to be considered when looking at the subject either on a national or international scale. Recycling is an increasingly complex industry, entwining environmental and commercial objectives, public and private sectors, a great diversity of material streams, state-of-the-art equipment and the need for behavioural change.
Collection strategies for different waste streams
A cornerstone of recycling is effective waste collection, and many local authorities are now looking to households and businesses to ensure this is in place. It is no longer sufficient to leave one or more bags of ‘rubbish’ at the end of a drive or back of a workplace.
In Europe, whilst the pace of development varies across different countries, generally speaking the separation at source – or at least at the kerbside – of dry recyclables (paper, glass and metals) has been occurring for some time and the evolution of this practice continues. Such evolution can be seen both in behavioural terms, with more households participating, and in the technology of waste collection vehicles. On this latter point, in the May-June ’08 issue of Waste Management World, Malcolm Bates suggests that perhaps the most significant new product of the past 12 months is the recently designed ‘multi-modal’ waste collection body transfer system developed for the City of London in the UK, though he added that the production of this vehicle has been delayed.
In the same article Malcolm Bates also mentions that waste collection and recycling vehicles – and new designs of dedicated food-waste collection units – seem to be downsizing. Highlighting food waste is important since the recycling of food waste is now starting to build momentum, in parallel with maturing treatment technology. For example, support for food waste recycling is one of a number of priorities in the Waste Strategy for England 2007. Recycling is no longer simply associated with dry recyclables; as the earlier definition suggests, it also includes organic material.
Like food waste, packaging waste is receiving growing attention from policy makers, industry and the general public, partly no doubt as a result of the growing volumes of packaging that are coming on to the market. Interestingly, for some stakeholders this level of attention is a cause for concern. In May this year Europen (the European Organization for Packaging and the Environment) wrote to European Commission President José Manuel Barroso and representatives of the 27 EU Member States, urging them not to pursue the idea of making packaging a priority area for the application of economic instruments.
Independent of how plastics are collected and processed, consumers are motivated to recycle plastics. Research conducted last year by EMG-Europe, EMG-China and USA Strategies supports this point², but highlights that without government intervention, recycling trends will not change (see table 1). It concludes that ‘Manufacturers can continue to expect new legislation from the EU about recycling. In the US and China, manufacturers will not see recycling trends change for the next five years’.
Degrees of separation
Looking at the practicalities of government intervention, one aspect central to waste policy is the degree to which local authorities support source separation i.e. for instance, does the local authority provide a collection service for plastics?
Earlier this year, the Campaign for Real Recycling in England launched its recycling collection hierarchy. It describes the ‘best’ and most preferable method for maintaining the quality of materials collected as kerbside source separated; and the worst approach as what is commonly referred to as the ‘survival bag’, where a mix of recyclable materials are placed in a single bag that is collected at the same time as normal household waste (in black bags).
International experience can help inform this debate, reflecting that the same issues are being addressed across the globe. Looking to Toronto, Canada, the St George campus of the University of Toronto recently announced that it achieved a waste diversion rate of 63% in 2007. It is running a scheme that includes a degree of co-mingled collection. All materials accepted in the City of Toronto’s ‘Blue Box’ scheme are collected in its bottle-and-can containers found inside and outside campus buildings, including glass, plastic, and metal beverage and food containers. In this way, this academic institution is evolving its recycling practice alongside city policy.
Outlook for the recycling industry
Having put in place an appropriate framework for collecting the waste, the industry must fulfil its potential to deliver efficient equipment for recovering key material streams. And this is happening along a number of different pathways.
Various companies continue to invest in technology that shreds first and sorts later, often linked with a ‘single-flow’ approach to mechanical biological treatment. The emergence of new types of cross flow shredder is indicative of this thinking (such as the Diabolo from AU+T – see photograph below), as is the uptake of hydro-mechanical treatment technologies such as the ArrowBio waste treatment process. On 4 July this year an ArrowBio plant was inaugurated in Sydney, Australia; it is expected to process over 300 tonnes of municipal solid waste (MSW) per day.
 The Diabolo cross flow shredder by AU+T |
For many facilities, throughput is one of the parameters used to measure performance of processing equipment. In the sorting sector, another key parameter is resolution. Exemplifying the advances being made, earlier this year Germany-based Steinert stated that its non-ferrous metals separators (which utilize an eccentric and adjustable pole system) can separate finely divided non-ferrous metals with grain sizes down to 1 mm.
The advancing nature of this industry can also be seen in terms of brand development, with the expansion of TiTech being a case in point. The market now demands both high quality machines and elegant branding, with the new TR crusher series from Untha or the latest model of Tana’s Shark shredder adding weight to this argument. It is clear that marketing budgets are on their way up too!
 MeWa’s QZ machine |
Flexibility is another keyword, whether this comes in the form of delivering compact machines, such as the Varisort machine from S+S Separation and Sorting Technology GmbH, or more mobile equipment such as ARTech Recyclingtechnik GmbH’s mobile rotary shear (see photograph above). The first-named technology combines inductive, optical and near infrared (NIR) sensors: an impressive achievement when you consider its relatively modest size. ARTech’s rotary shear is much bigger by comparison, but its flexibility is manifest when you consider where the machine can go.
Flexibility can also be manifest in the production process itself, whereby the manufacturer is able to respond more precisely to market demands. Earlier this spring Bollegraaf Recycling Machinery – a Dutch company that specializes in balers and sorting systems – announced that from 2009 it would be adopting a fully automated production process, with manual assembly only required to put together all components. Bollegraaf sees this as a key way of reducing production costs and in-house stock whilst at the same time boosting production capacity.
Overall, it is evident that there are an increasing number of ways in which different wastes can be processed, whether this is a single-flow approach as mentioned earlier or early separation of key materials followed by refining the outputs in parallel. The industry now has the flexibility to provide solutions that identify a specified material stream based on its shape, colour, size or density, and to deliver equipment that responds to increasing market demands.
So what challenges remain?
In many ways recycling technology is reaching such an advanced stage one might infer that few challenges remain. But this is not the case.
 ARTech Recyclingtechnik GmbH’s Mobile Rotary Shear |
It is important to recognize that our mindset for recycling is shifting from a very basic idea of putting aside paper and cans to something much more far-reaching. For example, returning to the definition of recycling mentioned at the outset of this article, recycling also includes the reprocessing of organic material. And in this regard, the recycling industry must consider a wide variety of material streams. In addition to the impact of improved food waste collection, one significant and rather specialized area of growth is in bio-based plastics.
European Bioplastics estimates that last year all bioplastics applications comprised approximately 75,000-100,000 tonnes of the total 48 million tonnes European plastics market. Furthermore it estimates annual growth is considerably higher than 20% and predicts a potential market for bioplastics in Europe of about five million tonnes by 2020. Many in the waste industry will be watching with interest the impact that bioplastics have on the recycling process. Frequently asked questions about bioplastics are answered in a document recently published by European Bioplastics4, which also covers end-of-life recovery options and examines what it means to recycle this evolving material stream.
Mentioning bioplastics offers a useful stepping stone to an important conclusion. Whilst more money that ever is pouring into the recycling industry and R&D departments are engineering impressive state-of-the-art equipment, the industry must be prepared for change. In particular this is likely to come as more emphasis is placed on whole-life cycle assessment of products and a growing focus is placed on heading further up the production chain. For an age-old industry, shifting the focus from disposal toward production will ensure a range of challenges remain for some to come.
Guy Robinson is Managing Director of Wellington Green Ltd., and former editor of Waste Management World.
References
1. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/file.jsp?id=5303132
2. Understanding the current trends in plastics recycling, April 2007, USA Strategies, Inc.
3. 2007 key figures on quantities of electrical and electronic equipment put on the market, of quantities of WEEE collected, and on costs related to WEEE management, WEEE Forum, July 2008.
4. Bioplastics Frequently Asked Questions, European Bioplastics, June 2008
The evolution of recycling platforms
As the recycling industry evolves, so too do a growing number of recycling platforms and take-back schemes. Exemplifying this is the development of the WEEE Forum (http://www.weee-forum.org). As many readers will know, WEEE stands for waste electrical and electronic equipment, and the WEEE Forum is a not-for-profit association of 42 collective take-back systems throughout Europe. In July 2008 it published a report on WEEE in Europe, which provides useful data on the amount of WEEE being collected, the costs involved and trends linked the implementation of the WEEE Directive.³
