Battery Waste Management Life Cycle Assessment

Battery Waste Management Life Cycle Assessment Final Report for Publication 18 October 2006 Delivering sustainable solutions in a more competitive world Defra Battery Waste Management Life Cycle Assessment Final Report for Publication 18 October 2006 Prepared by: Karen Fisher, Erika Wallén, Pieter Paul Laenen and Michael Collins For and on behalf of Environmental Resources Management Approved by: Simon Aumônier___________ Signed: ________________________________ Position: Partner ________________________ Date: 18 October 2006 ________________ This report has been prepared by Environmental Resources Management the trading name of Environmental Resources Management Limited, with all reasonable skill, care and diligence within the terms of the Contract with the client, incorporating our General Terms and Conditions of Business and taking account of the resources devoted to it by agreement with the client. We disclaim any responsibility to the client and others in respect of any matters outside the scope of the above. This report is confidential to the client and we accept no responsibility of whatsoever nature to third parties to whom this report, or any part thereof, is made known. Any such party relies on the report at their own risk. CONTENTS 1 BATTERY WASTE MANAGEMENT LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT 1 1.1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 1 1.2 INTRODUCTION 1 1.3 ISO 14040: GOAL AND SCOPE REQUIREMENTS 2 1.4 GOAL OF STUDY 2 1.5 FUNCTION AND FUNCTIONAL UNIT 3 1.6 SYSTEMS TO BE STUDIED 5 1.7 COLLECTION SCENARIOS 6 1.8 RECYCLING SCENARIOS 17 1.9 RESIDUAL WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 27 1.10 IMPLEMENTATION SCENARIOS 28 1.11 SYSTEM BOUNDARIES 28 1.12 ALLOCATION PROCEDURES 35 1.13 INVENTORY ANALYSIS 35 1.14 IMPACT ASSESSMENT 35 1.15 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 38 1.16 DATA REQUIREMENTS 39 1.17 KEY ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS 40 1.18 CRITICAL REVIEW 40 2 INVENTORY ANALYSIS: LIFE CYCLE INVENTORY DATA 42 2.1 COLLECTION SYSTEMS 42 2.2 BATTERY MATERIAL COMPOSITION 55 2.3 RECYCLING SYSTEMS 58 2.4 RESIDUAL WASTE MANAGEMENT 72 2.5 SECONDARY DATASETS 73 2.6 IMPLEMENTATION SYSTEMS 84 3 LIFE CYCLE INVENTORY ANALYSIS: RESULTS 85 4 LIFE CYCLE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 96 5 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 109 5.1 BATTERY WASTE ARISINGS 109 5.2 COLLECTION TARGETS 110 5.3 DIRECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION YEAR 111 5.4 DISPOSAL ASSUMPTIONS 112 5.5 INSTITUTIONAL COLLECTION POINTS 113 5.6 ELECTRICITY INPUT TO RECYCLING 114 6 FINANCIAL COSTS 116 6.1 COLLECTION COSTS 116 6.2 SORTING COSTS 119 6.3 RECYCLING COSTS 120 6.4 DISPOSAL COSTS 122 6.5 TOTAL COSTS FOR IMPLEMENTATION SCENARIOS 124 6.6 EVALUATING THE EXTERNAL COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 127 7 CONCLUSIONS 130 8 REFERENCES 133 ANNEXES ANNEX A UK Battery Collection Schemes ANNEX B Impact Assessment Method (Includes Characterisation Factors) ANNEX C Assessment of Alternative Growth Scenarios ANNEX D Inventories ANNEX E Critical Review ANNEX F ERM Response to Critical Review Executive Summary 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 INTRODUCTION At the end of 2004, the EU Council of Ministers reached agreement on a draft Directive on Batteries and Accumulators. This Common Position text includes a number of requirements: • a partial ban on portable nickel-cadmium batteries (with some exclusions); • a collection target of 25% of all spent portable batteries 4 years after transposition of the Directive; • a collection target of 45% of all spent portable batteries 8 years after transposition of the Directive; and • recycling targets for collected portable batteries of between 50% and 75%. The aim of this study is to inform readers of the costs and benefits of various options for implementing these collection and recycling requirements in the UK. The study uses a life cycle assessment (LCA) approach with a subsequent economic valuation of the options. The LCA methods undertaken comply with those laid down in international standards (ISO14040). The study has been commissioned by the UK Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). Its intended purpose is to assist policy by estimating the financial cost of different collection and recycling routes and to estimate the environmental return for that expenditure. Findings will be used to inform the development of a regulatory impact assessment (RIA) for the implementation of the proposed Directive in the UK. The study, in accordance with the international standard for LCA, ISO14040, has been critically reviewed by a third party, Dr Anders Schmidt from FORCE Technology. 1.2 COMPARING SCENARIOS FOR DIRECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION To compare options for implementing the proposed Batteries Directive, the study considered the environmental impacts associated with the management of forecast consumer portable battery waste arisings in the UK between 2006 and 2030. This included the collection and recycling of all portable battery chemistries, with the exception of industrial and automotive batteries. The scope of the assessment has included the collection, sorting, recycling and residual waste management of the waste batteries. Impacts relating to the production and use of batteries were excluded from the study. Therefore, the options compared differ only in method of collection and subsequent treatment or recycling. Three collection scenarios were assessed, as follows: ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DEFRA - BATTERY LCA 1 • Collection Scenario 1 where kerbside collection schemes are favoured; • Collection Scenario 2 where CA site collection schemes are favoured; and • Collection Scenario 3 where bring receptacle collection schemes, located in business/school/public/WEEE dismantler premises, are favoured. These were matched with three scenarios describing the main alternative options for recycling alkaline and saline batteries (these account for more that 80% of battery sales in the UK) which were as follows: • Recycling Scenario 1 - UK provision of hydrometallurgical recycling; • Recycling Scenario 2 - UK and EU provision of hydrometallurgical recycling (50:50); and • Recycling Scenario 3 - EU provision of pyrometallurgical recycling. In combination, a total of nine implementation scenarios were created (for example collection scenario 1 plus recycling scenario 1 etc.). These were compared with a tenth, baseline, scenario that assumed all batteries are managed as residual waste (89% landfill, 11% incineration). For each scenario, all of the materials, chemicals and energy consumed during the manufacture of collection containers, sorting of batteries into separate chemistries and processing for recycling or disposal were identified, together with all of the emissions to the environment at each stage. All these ‘flows’ were quantified and traced back to the extraction of raw materials that were required to supply them. For example, polymer materials used in collection containers were linked to the impacts associated with crude oil extraction. Any ‘avoided’ flows resulting from the recovery of metals in recycling processes (and reducing the need for virgin metals production) were also quantified. Figure 1.1 shows the system that was studied for each implementation scenario. The total flows of each substance were compiled for each stage of the life cycle and used to assess the environmental impacts of each system. For example, flows of methane, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases were aggregated for each system in total. Internationally agreed equivalents that quantify the relative global warming effect of each gas were then used to assess the overall global warming impact of each implementation scenario. This ‘impact assessment’ was carried out for a number of categories of environmental impact, for which there are well-described methods: abiotic resource depletion; global warming; ozone layer depletion; human, aquatic and terrestrial toxicity; acidification; and eutrophication. Key players in the battery waste management industry provided data on the materials and energy requirements of collection, sorting and recycling operations shown in Figure 1.1 (including materials recovery). Published life cycle inventory data were, in turn, used to describe the production (and avoided production) of these material and energy inputs. It is acknowledged ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DEFRA - BATTERY LCA 2 that a key limitation of the study was the use of secondary data in this way. However, it was not within the scope of the project to collect primary data for these processes. The increasing age of secondary data suggest a need for a Europe wide programme to maintain and to improve LCI data for use in studies such as this. Figure 1.1 System Boundary of Scenarios 1.3 THE STUDY FINDINGS The study shows that increasing recycling of batteries is beneficial to the environment, due to the recovery of metals and avoidance of virgin metal production. However, it is achieved at significant financial cost when compared with disposal. Table 1.1 displays the net environmental benefit associated with implementation scenarios (1-9), over and above the baseline scenario (10). Table 1.2 displays the waste management and average environmental and social costs that have been estimated for each implementation scenario. Estimates show that implementation of the proposed Directive will result in a significant increase in battery waste management costs, with some savings in ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DEFRA - BATTERY LCA 3 the financial costs quantified for environmental and social aspects (1). At the same time, the CO2 savings that can be achieved amount to between 198kg and 248kg CO2-equivalents avoided per tonne of battery waste arisings, in comparison

Load more