Development of a Regional Waste Recovery / Processing Sector

Acknowledgements

Executive summary

1. Introduction

2. Total waste stream and quantities of plastic, glass and tyres

3. Projected waste quantities

4. Reprocessing technologies for tyres

5. Reprocessing technologies for plastic

6. Reprocessing technology for glass

7. Conclusion

References

Appendix A: Template for Assessing the Regional Suitability of Waste Reprocessing Technologies for Tyres, Plastic and Glass

Appendix B: Major European PET and HDPE Reprocessors

7. Conclusion

In conclusion it can be seen that a wide range of technologies exist for the reprocessing of tyres, plastic and glass in the Wellington region. All of the identified reprocessing options have been included in the summary matrix overleaf where the costs, risks and barriers etc. associated with each technology have been included.

It can be seen that the reprocessing options vary considerably. For example, used tyres may be utilised as an alternative fuel source for the cement industry, however it is likely that this would require a regional or national used tyre collection and transportation system, in addition to potential modifications to the existing cement manufacturing process. Alternatively an energy recovery technology, such as pyrolysis, maybe developed, however, this invariably involves high capital cost.

For glass a mobile or regional crushing plant may be procured to service local authorities across the region. The aim being to reduce transport costs and to provide a feedstock to attract alternative end use markets such as foam glass, aggregate or as a filtration media, for example.

Development of the region's plastic reprocessing capacity may be achieved by expanding the throughput of the existing plastic reprocessing facility or by investing in technology such as pyrolysis that produces a high demand product such as low sulphur diesel.

The full range of technologies and options summarised overleaf also show that low, medium and high economic sensitivities and risks exist with regards to entry and transport costs, product demand, technology development and volume required for each process. For example, it can be seen that for tyres the use of rubberised asphalt concrete has a low entry cost when compared to gasification, while glass container manufacture entry cost is high compared to a mobile crusher. Similarly feedstock quality for mechanical processing of plastic is high, as a high degree of separation and low contamination is required, whereas feedstock quality for pyrolysis is low as it does not require any separation of the plastic polymers.

The matrix overleaf also shows that the major barriers to developing the reprocessing capacity for used tyres is high capital cost of the technology and that a coordinated collection and transportation system is required. For tyres, plastic and glass it was identified that more research and development is required, particularly with regards to alternative end use applications such as the use of crumbed rubber in rubberised asphalt concrete or crushed glass as aggregate and concrete.

It is evident that a wide range of technologies and options exist for each of the individual waste streams. Many new and emerging technologies are developing, particularly with regards to plastic reprocessing and energy recovery from tyres, and it is envisaged that during the forthcoming years a wider range of options will become commercially available.