Scope of the end-of-life stage

The end-of-life stage considers the environmental footprint that comes with the waste processing of the packaging product after use. The disposal of packaging is often done outside the span of control of the seller of the packaging. Therefor it is hard to collect solid evidence on how much percent end up in the bin or is recylced. But without the end of life data a product footprint is not considered to be complete by many authorities.
​
There 3 main approaches on to overcome the data gap if there is no solid evidence available on the end of life;

Pickler uses the aproach of input recycled content (3) rate (EOL-RiR) for calculating the footprint. Also called EOL-RiR. This creates often confusion since many governments are local authorities report on EOL-RR and this number varies significant especially for the packaging industry from the number on how much content actual gets recycled into new products. This also accounts the approach (1) on the recyclability of a product, which isn't solid evidence on claiming on how much percent is actually getting recycled.

This difference between RR en RiR rates are caused by;

(a) EOL-RIR: end of life Recycling Input Rate – the fraction of secondary material in the total material input to the production system, i.e. the recycled content of a product. It measures the proportion of total material available to manufacturers that comes from recycling of end-of-life products.

(b) EOL-RR: end of life Recycling Rate – the the share of a material in waste flows that is actually recycled. It provides information about the performance of the collection and recycling to recover materials at end-of-life and it is thus useful from a recyclers’ perspective

Most of the data on recycling rates are EOL-RR, but take care: in LCA we need to apply the EOL-RIR (see the figure above).

Note that recycling data are hard to calculate because of import and export of countries, because of “diffusion” (materials that disappear) and because of the residence time (amount that is in use in our society). It is extremely difficult to make correct mass balances.

Source; https://www.ecocostsvalue.com/frequently-asked-questions/

The default end-of-life scenarios that are applied on products in Pickler are provided by Sustainability impact metrics and are based on averages on waste and industry insights including market growth for materials.

There are four major end-of-life scenarios;

1. Incineration with energy recovery

Burning waste (also called incineration) is a common used scenario for most packaging materials in Europe. Since this process is often the most economic scenario and many packaging materials are contaminated or are created from multiple different materials, making recycling too exspensive.

Most European waste incinerator facilities use the heat of the burning process to power generators to create electricity. Generating this electricity reduces the amount of electricity coming from other sources like gas or coal. This prevention is called in LCA a 'credit' for heat recovery (according to ISO 14044 Section 4.3.3.1). This credit is based on the lower heating value multiplied by an incinerator efficiency of 55% (i.e. the efficiency of a modern municipal waste incinerator).

The footprint of waste treatment depends on the combustibility (amount generated by burning it) of the used material and is provided by Idemat.
​
Another important factor is if the material is biobased or fossilbased read more here about this differences and how they are taken into account in LCA.

Read here why the score or credit can be also be a negative value.

2. Landfill

Dumping waste into landfills or on open piles is worldwide the most used disposal method.

In terms of footprint, the score depends on the type of material. For example plastic on a landfill does not emit any CO2 by itself.

3. Recycling

According to Sustainability Impact Metrics some mono materials can be considered as highly recyclable by default. For example, glass and metals are assumed to be 100% recycled since they will never be burned to generate electricity. For cellulose-based materials, the default value is 66,7% recycling, based on known data from its regulated waste stream system.

For the recycled percentages of the materials that have established waste stream systems, the footprint score of the end-of-life scenario will be 0.

If other types of recycled material are used in the product, the 'credits' will be counted at the input in the raw material stage. This is because data on the recycling process of a specific product can be unreliable or difficult to verify. Therefore, considering recycling credits at the raw material stage is a more robust approach for accounting for the environmental impact of recycled materials in the life cycle assessment.

4. Composting

Because waste facilities in the EU are very limited suited for composting, we never use composting as a default scenario. This scenario can be changed in scenario products or when the supplier is able to provide evidence supporting this claim.

The default scenarios for material categories are summarized in the table below.

3.a Products with deposit

Providing proof that your product has a deposit can significantly reduce its environmental impact in the end-of-life scenario. According to the life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology, recycled materials are considered to belong to a new life cycle, and the use of recycled materials in the manufacturing of new products can significantly reduce the environmental impact associated with the extraction of raw materials and the disposal of waste. Therefore, if your product has a deposit, and the materials can be effectively recycled, the environmental impact associated with its disposal can be reduced to zero, resulting in a more sustainable product life cycle.

According to the Sustainability Impact Metrics institute the mix for End of life is mostly driven by the following price factors;

Please note; the mix default EOL mix can be adjusted if users have evidence that in their specific case the default value is not applicable.

In general the following end-of-life scenarios are used in Europe:

Source: https://www.ecocostsvalue.com/

Source: http://ecocostvalue.com/

Source: http://ecocostvalue.com/

Source: http://ecocostvalue.com/

source: https://www.ecocostsvalue.com/frequently-asked-questions/#toggle-id-13
​

Downcycling in LCA

There is an on-going debate on how to deal with such examples of downcycling in LCA, partly because of the interests of the industry, partly because of the challenge to model it in science. This is the field of ‘attributional modelling’, where the debate is focused on economic allocation methods down the recycling cascade, see for details the ILCD Handbook of Life Cycle Assessment – Detailed Guidance, Annex C. In this LCA handbook, a practical approach is proposed, following the rule in ISO 14044 that output of combustible material may be transformed into an energy output. In the case of paper and paper products it does make sense to take the electricity output of a municipal waste incinerator as a norm.

Such a chain is shown in the figure below.

The waste paper products are depicted here as part of the total paper chain. Recycling rates (2022) are: 2.5x in EU, 2.1x in USA, 3.8x in NL(ref. Milieu Centraal).

The waste paper products are ‘additional applications’ in the paper chain. It does make sense to give:

(a) this additional application no eco-burden of its material source (e.g. apply the cut-off at the stockpile of waste, like it is done in EN 15804),

(b) allocate 1/3 of the credits for End of Life (incineration) to the waste paper when the waste paper is 3x recycled. The eco-burden of such a secondary product is only its transport, processing, use, waste processing, and part of the EoL credit.

The same principle may be applied to other examples of real downcycling such as:

•mechanical recycling (re-melting) of clean and pure plastics (e.g. PET)

•street furniture pressed from different kind of coloured plastics

•hardboard plates made from old, discarded, wooden planks

•consumer products directly made from waste, like bags and garments made ofdiscarded clothing

•aggregate from concrete

Note 1. In such an approach, the grade (quality) of the waste – not to be confused with the grade of the secondary (recycled) material – is not relevant for the eco-costs of the waste, since the eco-costs of waste to be recycled is 0, regardless of its quality, see the FAQ 2.6 (there is no “carry over” from the first life to the second).

Note 2. The actual recycling rate of a product (e.g. 3x) is a result of customer behavior. It has nothing to do with the maximum achievable recyclability in a laboratory of a clean paper (approx 25x, according Univ of Gratz), since the recycling rate is a result of human behavior. The maximum recyclability of paper for household consumer waste is approx 4x ,because of contamination problems with e.g. fats. For office waste, recyclability can reach 7x since the contamination (mainly ink) is less . In practice, office waste and household waste are mixed at the recycling plant to get the required quality of the end-product.

Note 3. Recycling rates in countries are hard to measure, mainly because of unknown imports and exports (e,g, packaging of imported goods from the far east), and unknown “diffusion” (e.g. toilet paper in sewers). So data can easily be manipulated by simplification of the mass balances.

Source: https://www.ecocostsvalue.com/frequently-asked-questions/#toggle-id-11

Structuring recycling and end-of-life in LCA
​The basic difference of “linear” systems and “circular” systems is depicted in the figure at the left below.
​

The LCA of a linear system starts with the cradle (mining of ore, or production of oil), and ends with the stockpile of sorted waste materials at the end-of-life, which is the “cut-off point” in the Idemat calculation (as it is in EN 15804). There is no “carry-over” to the next product life cycle.

​The LCA of a circular system starts with the stockpile of sorted waste materials, which are to be recycled (eco-costs= zero at this starting point) into a new product. The end of the cycle is the stockpile of sorted waste, which is the cut-off point.
​

Example: when textiles are made from recycled PET-bottles, the input for the recycling process is considered ‘burden-free’ (because all of the impact associated with the production of the bottles is allocated to the first use of those bottles).

It is important to notice that, in manufacturing practice, there is nearly always a combination of virgin and recycled materials at the input. So the calculations with 100 ‘recycling credit’ (100% ‘closed loop’) are wishful thinking in most cases. In LCA it is better to calculate with the real mass flows of virgin and recycled materials at the input (referring to the so-called ‘recycled content’ of the product).

The figure at the right depicts the same basic idea, but gives all recycling and end-of-life options. The numbers in this figure relate to the “Delft Order of Preferences”, a list of the 10 major systems for End of Life, used for structured and systemized analyses of (combinations of) design options (Vogtlander et al, 2002):
​

1. Extending of the product life
2. Object renovation
3. Re-use of components
4. Re-use of materials
5. Useful application of waste materials (compost, granulated stone and concrete, slag, etc.)
6. Immobilization with useful appliances
7. Immobilization without useful appliances
8. Incineration with energy recovery
9. Incineration without energy recovery
10 Land fill

It is important to realize that for big, modular objects (like buildings), there is not “one system for End of Life” but in reality there is always a combination of systems.
​

Two basic rules for allocation in the eco-costs model are (see figure at the right):
​

In line with the aforementioned allocation strategy, the ‘bonus’ to use recycled materials is taken at the beginning of the product chain, where the new product is created. Material depletion is caused here when ‘virgin’ materials are applied, material depletion is avoided when recycled materials are applied.

​The benefit of recycling options must always be calculated by benchmarking of (two or more) total recycling-production loops, starting at the stockpiles of materials that are to be recycled. Other attempts to calculate the benefit of recycling are doomed to fail.

Details per material in the end-of-life stage are displayed when hovered over the "i" at the end-of-life stage. In general the footprint is related to amount of energy that a material provides when being incinerated.