uk _glass & recycled glass production & market _report care2004

8/14/2019 UK _glass & recycled glass production & market _report CARE2004

1/31

CARE Report on automotive glass recycling

2004 Update

by


2/31

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Peter Stokes (CARE Group) and the other members of the CARE Group for their support

continued support and guidance throughout this project and the constructive feedback received. Finally I would

like to thank Peter Pennells, Rebecca Cocking and the members of WRAP for their valuable input and feedback

in finalising the report.


3/31

Table of Contents

Executive Summary....................................................................................................................5

Executive Summary....................................................................................................................5INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................7

Types of Glass.........................................................................................................................7

Glass Production the process...............................................................................................7

Container glass....................................................................................................................7

Flat glass.............................................................................................................................7

Glass Production the figures................................................................................................8

Figure 1 UK Glass Production figures by sector.....................................................................8

Waste Glass and Glass Recycling.............................................................................................10UK Waste Arisings................................................................................................................10

Why Recycle Glass?.............................................................................................................10

Packaging waste regulations.............................................................................................10

End-of-Life Vehicles Directive.........................................................................................10

How is glass recycled?..........................................................................................................10

Waste Glass processing.........................................................................................................11

Benefits.............................................................................................................................11Problems associated with recycling glass.........................................................................11

Figure 2 Production v recycling: the UKs colour imbalance................................................12

Economics and fluctuations in market price instability....................................................12

The markets...............................................................................................................................13

Existing and Potential markets for waste glass.....................................................................13

Figure 3 Potential routes for waste glass...............................................................................13

Glass Markets........................................................................................................................13

Fi 4 P t ll t b l t 14


4/31

Shredding in the UK.........................................................................................................26

Technical and Economic Barriers to recovery ELV glass.....................................................26


5/31

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In 1999 (published Feb 2000) CARE produced a report which looked at the challenges for industry in the

recycling of automotive glass, against the backdrop of competing glass waste streams and limited recycling

opportunities. Since Glass approximates to 3% of an average vehicles weight and is relatively easy to remove,

store and transport, it is viewed as an important material en-route to the attainment of the End of Life Vehicle

Directive targets. Four years have passed since the original report and this second report is designed to ascertain

how that backdrop has changed and to flag up the challenges yet to be overcome, as well as emerging

opportunities.

Glass still remains a significant contributor to the UKs waste stream and as such is still a primary focus in

nationwide initiatives for recycling and re-use. In recent years, however, the adoption of new legislation into the

UK has increased the mandatory requirements on certain industries to recycle this material. The Packaging

Waste Directive and the ELV Directives impose set targets to the applicable industries for recycling and recovery

rates.

The technologies associated with the variety of glass types made remain relatively unchanged in recent years.

Glass manufacturers are becoming increasingly aware of the pressure on them to accept recycled glass cullet and

as such investments in newer technologies are occurring. The process of re-processing glass to form cullet and

the removal of contaminants also remains relatively unchanged with the main advances and research effort in the

separation of the fine fractions of materials in the mix.

Although advances in the technological side of glass making and re-processing may appear slow in terms of

enhancing the ability to consume increased amounts of variable quality cullet, the developments in the market

place for recycled material have been steadily ongoing. In 1999 the dominant route for recycled glass cullet

would have been back into the glass sector, with the container sector consuming the main proportion of total

recycled glass. However, at that time the emergence of the aggregates sector was beginning, using glass cullet as

an aggregate substitute, primarily for highway construction. There is now a changing picture of the market

structure for recycled glass. Although the container sector still remains the dominant consumer of glass cullet,

the flat and fibre glass sectors are increasingly conscious that they need to increase their use of post-consumer

glass In addition to this the aggregates sector (ranging from top end se in Glassphalt to bottom end se as a


6/31

The industry is arguably already on target for reaching the figures set out for 2006; however, it is necessary that

the distinction between recovery and recycling is adhered to in reaching these targets. These targets are very high

and therefore require a high percentage of the material that makes up an automotive vehicle to be recycled.

Current estimates for the percentage recycled material are anywhere between 72% (EMR/SIMMS study 2003)

and 77+% depending on the data source (ACORD annual reports.) and therefore include the main components of

the vehicle, for example metals, and those which are easily removed, for example tyres and batteries. However,

the industry now has to look into the ways and means of recycling the more difficult components such as glass

and plastics in order to continue to increase the recycled and recovered weights to reach future targets.

Increasing research and feasibility experiments have been ongoing in the automotive sector in terms of removing

the vehicle glass. Though some advances have been made, it is still the case that the cost of removing the glass

from vehicles at the dismantling stage (which ultimately gives the higher value product as quality is higher)

mean it is still an uneconomic process. The cost of removing the glass from one vehicle ranges between 2.50

and 3.50 and with the current market price for cullet ranging from 5/tonne to 45/tonne (dependent on quality)

ELV glass generated at the dismantling stage (i.e. high cost stage requiring high cost end markets) is

economically infeasible at present. The resultant cullet would have to fetch a minimum price of 102/tonne to

make the process economically feasible. However, this figure is based on potential ELV waste glass arisings

from dismantling allELV vehicles in a year. This figure is unrealistic due to the loss of glass in removal andELVs only suitable for immediate shredding and so with dismantled vehicles and glass tonnages only a

percentage of the total the realistic figure is likely to be significantly higher between 278/tonne and 389/tonne.

Such high prices would require high value end markets often found in the niche market areas such as decorative

aggregates. However, these often only require small tonnages (100s to 1000s) and demand is intermittent.Alternatively, the cost of removing the glass must fall to at least half of the current best case dismantling cost

and that is only if increasing volumes can be removed. More realistically the cost of glass removal must fall to

less than 1/5 of the present day costs to be become viable for the higher priced end markets. But, again, the

problems of contamination in this source often render the cullet only suitable for lower priced end markets such

as use in the aggregates sector as a substitute for gravel, as the glass can be left in the vehicle and separated at a

later stage.

Although the situation remains complex and costly at present there are emerging markets that not only are able

t d hi h l d t b t l l lit ll t O f th k t i th f l k t


7/31

INTRODUCTION

The 1999 CARE Report on Glass Recycling

addresses several issues to establish the situation at

that time for automotive glass recycling. Five years

on, the following report aims to re-address the

situation highlighting developments in technology

associated with glass production and glass

recycling, the change in market structure for

recycled glass, new and potential market entrants

and the up to date situation in the ELV disposal

chain with respect to overcoming the problems

raised in the 1999 report.

The report is in four main sections:

SECTION 1: Focuses on re-establishing the basic

types of glass, glass production processes and

associated volumes in the UK.

SECTION 2: Focuses on glass recycling.

SECTION 3: Focuses on the current market

situation and potential entrants.

SECTION 4: Focuses on the role that ELV glass

can play in the automotive industrys attempt toreach mandatory recycling targets and minimise

disposal.

TYPESOFGLASS

There are several types of glass distinguished by

their chemical composition. The alteration of the

chemical constituents in the glass making mix

ll f t t lt th ti f th

70-74% silica (sand)

12-16% sodium oxide

5-11% calcium oxide

1-3% magnesium oxide (higher in flat glass)

1-3% aluminium oxide

These proportions may alter slightly for the

alternative glass types and in some cases additional

components are added for special effects such as

colouring the glass. For lead glass the calcium

oxide is replace by lead oxide to give the final

product a high refractive index creating the

characteristic sparkle of crystal when cut.

GLASSPRODUCTIONTHEPROCESS

The four basic stages of the glass making process

remain the same in all types of glass production

which are1:

Melting

Refining

WorkingAnnealing

The general glass making process has remained

relatively unchanged in present years. However, it

is necessary to briefly understand the different

mechanical principles behind the production of the

final products that distinguish the form of the final

products.


8/31

1. Melting and refining raw materials enter the

furnace and through a series of complex flow

patterns the molten glass becomes free of inclusions

and bubbles and passes smoothly and continuously

to the next stage.

2. Float bath the molten glass is literally floated

along a bed of molten tin and although the principle

of this process remains unchanged developments

now allow variations in thickness and a marked

improvement in the optical quality of the final

product.

3. Coating - the most significant advance in the

coating process is the on-line chemical vapour

deposition (CVD) that allows a variety of coatingless than a micron thick to be applied to the ribbon

of glass. These can have varying functions

including reflection of light of specified

wavelengths. Further developments in this area

could replace the present day method of carrying

the optical properties of the float glass.

4. Annealing the glass ribbon undergoes

secondary treatment to relieve stresses to avoid

breakage on cutting.5. Inspection advances in the inspection

technology aid the efficiency of the float process

allowing avoidance of imperfections undetectable

by the human eye whilst avoiding excess waste.

6. Cutting to order this helps to minimise waste.

The rolled glass process is used for the manufacture

of patterned flat glass and wired glass. The former

f th t i f d i i l

with the container sector dominating the glass

market with nearly two thirds of the total market

share and the majority of the remainder in the flat

glass sector (Figure 1).


9/31


10/31

WASTE GLASS AND GLASS RECYCLING

UK WASTEARISINGS

Household packaging waste forms the dominant

proportion of the UK glass waste stream. Reportsestimate waste glass arisings in the container sector

to be in excess of 2.4million tonnes per year. With

the addition of the commercial waste streams,

automotive arisings estimated at 80,000 tonnes per

year (45,000 tonnes of ELV waste plus 15,000

tonnes of windscreen replacements) and up to

500,000 tonnes per year of flat glass from end-of-

life buildings it appears that waste glass arisings in

the UK have increased from those recorded in the1999 report. This in addition to the 180,000 tonnes

of process scrap per year and glass arisings from

other sources such as lighting, cahode ray tubes and

tableware result in total UK waste glass arisings in

the region of 3.4million tonnes per year.

WHYRECYCLEGLASS?

Glass is a significant contributor to the UKs totalwaste particularly as the majority goes to landfill.

Although glass poses no significant problems in

terms of decomposition it does require significant

amounts of void space which is very limited in the

UK. As one of the less problematic waste streams it

has therefore been a primary target in recycling

strategies to reduce the UKs waste. Voluntary

initiatives have been encouraged in the past but it is

th i i f l i l ti t

which time they will be responsible for recycling

all vehicles regardless of age.

2. It sets recycling requirements as follows:

By January 1st 2006

Reuse and recovery: Min. 85% by weight on

average

Reuse and recycling: Min. 80% by weight on

average

Reuse specifies materials or components for the

same purpose for which they were made; recycling

refers to the reprocessing of the original or analternative use; recovery includes recycling with

energy recovery (i.e. combustion).

By January 1st 2015

Reuse and recovery: Min. 95% by weight on

average

Reuse and recycling: Min. 85% by weight on

average

All vehicles post December 31st 2004 must:

Be reusable and/or recyclable at a minimum of

85% by weight

Be reusable and/or recoverable at a minimum

of 95% by weight

3. It requires the established phase out of certain

heavy metals and those elements exempt from

h t t b l b ll d th t th b


11/31

and deliver to the consumer), although specific

glass waste streams can involve an increased

number of steps e.g. ELV Glass.

The container industry is probably the best

established sector for recycling at present due to thevast network of bottle banks situated across the UK.

These are then routinely emptied and transported by

various companies on a contract basis for delivery

to the glass re-processors. In some cases the waste

glass is re-used in the same plant as the generated

waste or in larger operations primary glass

producers will possess the necessary re-processing

equipment for waste glass therefore excluding the

final delivery stage. However, in some instances thewaste glass may not be suitable for re-use in the

glass sector and so will be transported to other

markets such as aggregates, or if completely

unsuitable, to landfill.

The main companies involved in the collection and

processing are T Berryman & Son and Glass

Recycling UK although some alternative markets

are introducing their own reprocessing capabilities.

WASTEGLASSPROCESSING

Benefits

It is always the case that in the absence of

mandatory legislation the benefits of recycling any

waste product must at least equal the cost of

recycling to make it economically feasible.

However, the benefits of glass recycling are not

l i b t l b fi i l

reduce expense in carbon taxes and to achieve

the standards required by them for carbon

reducing initiatives.

Using recycled materials reduces the burden on

landfills particularly in this case as glass takes

up a considerable amount of void space.

Reduces the use of raw materials and so the

depletion of natural resources and degradation

of the land for each 1 tonne of cullet used an

approximate equivalent of 1.2 tonnes of raw

materials are saved.

Problems associated with recycling glass

The glass recycling process, at first, appears fairly

straightforward. However, there are certain

problems associated with this waste stream that

must be eliminated in order for the final product

(cullet) to be of use. There are three main

problems associated with glass re-processing:

1. Contamination from other waste sources

During the collection process it is easy for non-

glass products including plastics, stones, metals and

ceramics to be included within the glass waste

stream. Although technologies have been developed

to minimise these in the final cullet product any

excess presence can lead to load rejection during

processing and then landfill. However, if the waste

stream is significantly crushed then some

contaminants can be so small that the technologies

for removal can be ineffective and unless a high

d f i b i f h l l f


12/31

Figure 2 Production v recycling: the UKs colour imbalance

Green

Amber

Clear

Colour Production Recycled

Green 328600 302300

Clear 1199400 249350

Amber 270100 65100

Improvements in treatment quality in conjunction

with encouraging clear imports, alternative green

glass markets and the education of consumers in

recent years has resulted in a large increase in the

re-use of the excess green glass during the period

from 1999-2000. At present it is estimated that up

ll i l

3. Glass breakage and glass mix

The greater the degree of breakage the more

difficult it is to assess the degree of contamination

within the waste stream and therefore reflects back

onto the problems associated with non-glass

contamination. In addition to this it is important

h diff f l i d h

Shaded area represents recyclate %

of the respective glass colour


13/31

THE MARKETS

EXISTINGAND POTENTIALMARKETSFORWASTEGLASS

At present there are two potential routes forrecycled glass; primary markets i.e. use back in the

glass making sector and secondary (or alternative)

markets (Figure 3). All of the markets currently

available to the waste glass industry and those

potential markets currently undergoing trials have

particular specifications for the cullet quality that is

of increasing importance as the demand on these

markets to use recycled materials increases.

Figure 3 Potential routes for waste glass

GlassMarkets


14/31

sources and whilst the flat glass sector at present

only uses flat glass sources (of which it presently

uses 40,000t/a and has the potential to increase this

to 70,000t/a) the proportions used by the other two

sectors varies in accordance with the product to be

made and the respective specifications. The

proportions of container and flat glass consumed by

the container and flat glass sectors are illustrated

below (Figure 4).

Figure 4 Present cullet use by glass sectors

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

800000

Sector

CulletUse(ta)

Flat

Container

Flat 110000 70000 40000 10000

Container 617000 0 15000 0

Container Flat Fibre Other

Economics

An average estimated value for the current price of

fl t l ll t i 25/t lth h i

in production results from contaminated sources. It

is for this reason that the primarily flat glass

li i th UK Pilki t ti t th


15/31

Amber Green


16/31

Bunkers 9,000t/a

Golf Course top dressing 111,000t/a

Fairways 160,000t/a

hockey


17/31

Economics

The typical costs of aggregates are between

5/tonne and 10/tonne. In 2002 an Aggregates Tax

of 1.60/tonne was introduced to encourage use of

recycled materials, which also applies to quarriedmaterial. Cullet of low grade (often higher in

contamination) is able to compete with these prices

as reduced quality in cullet reflects on the price

fetched per tonne.

Specifications

The main consideration of the glass cullet used inthese applications is that it can rival or better

traditional aggregates in terms of its mechanical

and chemical properties set out below ().

Table 4 General Aggregate Specifications

Standard Specification Glass substitute Notes

GRADINGSand < 5mm

Gravel 5-70mmNo Problem

Size distribution measured

according to BS812 Section

103

FLAKINESSCuboid/ Rounded

preferred

Larger glass fractions are

likely to be flakier

Refers to particle shape where

a high index is a plate like

particle

SHELL CONTENT No Problem

MECHANICAL

Minimum

50kN-150kN

Ten Percent Fines Value as

specified in BS812 pt. 3:1990

SOLUBLE

MINERALS

Sulphate unlikely to pose a

problem with glass although

chlorides form food stuffs

may be.

NB Although the above highlights the basic property requirements of glass, specifications are often

li i d d d h f i i f h ifi B i i h S d d li bl S


18/31

FILTRATION

Research into the use of glass as a substitute for

sand in filtration systems such as those used for

drinking waster and waste water purification

processes continues to address the feasibility of thismethod on a commercial basis and waste glass is

now being used extensively in these applications. In

addition to basic waste purification, research has

also shown that waste glass provided a suitable

substitute in swimming pool filtration systems and

there is also potential in the aquaculture and fish

farming industries.

Volume PotentialAlthough at present there is only a small market in

this field for glass cullet (current sales of a few

hundred tonnes per year) the volumes of sand used

for which glass might act as a substitute were

estimated to be between 45,000 and 67,000 tonnes

in 2002. However, it is anticipated that the volumes

of glass required for such applications could beeven greater ranging from 175,000 as far as

220,000 tonnes per year.

Specifications

The main specification of critical importance is the

particle size. The other specifications are detailed

below () but generally it is important that the glass

achieve the ultimate results of clean and purified

water to the required standard.

Table 5 Specifications for filtration applications

Standard Specifications

Contamination

limitsAgreed between processor and customer

Particle Size

Grade 0 - 0.63mm (95% passing), 0.25mm (10% passing), 0.25mm (5% passing) Grade

1 - 1mm (95% passing), 0.5-1mm (10% passing), 0.5mm (5% passing) Grade 3 -

2mm (95% passing), 1-2mm (10% passing), 1mm (5% passing)

Particle Shape Aspect ratio of greater than 5:1

Colour SpecsEntirely brown glass with clear and blue


19/31

ABRASIVES

There are a variety of abrasives for which glass

could be used as a substitute. These include blast

abrasives, bonded abrasives and frictionaters. Blast

abrasives are commonly used in the cleaning ofbuildings and masonry and can be either recyclable

or expendable. The major factors for consideration

in using glass as a substitute is that in the areas of

cost (purchase and disposal), cleaning rate and

consumption rate glass can equal or better the

original material. Research has taken place to

evaluate these aspects particularly in comparison to

the expendable abrasive, copper slag. Glass does

equally well and in some cases is better. Thechemical content of copper slag makes it unusable

in environmentally sensitive areas and in this factor

glass is clearly more competitive as it may be used

in such areas. Bonded abrasives use crushed glass

for the production of paper bonded abrasive sheets

particularly by Naylors Abrasives. Frictionaters use

glass for the production of matches and

ammunition.

Volume Potential

The main market players in the blast abrasives

sector include Wolverhampton Abrasives, Minelco

(previously known as Ferguson Wild Ltd.), Scangrit

and Krysteline. The estimated UK market potential

for waste glass is between 10,000t/a and 50,000t/a

although the problems described later (ref: Barriers

to entry) have so far caused resistance to the

formation of a significant market in this area.

However, at present, there is a current market

consumption of approximately 3,500t/a and this

market area is growing.

Economics

If the varying problems are overcome the price of

cullet could be extremely competitive with

abrasives as current glass abrasives for grit blasting

sell at 50-100 per tonne. The cost of conventional

recyclable abrasives is in excess of 200/tonne

whilst although lower in price, expendable

abrasives still fetch a good price of between 50

and 100/tonne. A common expendable abrasiveused is copper slag which although available at

virtually no cost is not available in the UK and as

such costs approximately 70/tonne to import.

Glass abrasives can therefore compete in cost with

the major conventional abrasives used in this

market.

Specifications

The specifications for these materials are similar tothose for container cullet () and as the container

industry accept a wide variety and vast amount of

both flat and container cullet such specifications

must be economically viable from the re-processing

perspective. With specifications such as those

detailed below there is significant market potential

for consuming glass cullet.


20/31

BRICKS & CERAMICS

The inclusion of sodium oxide in most plate and

container glass types allows finely ground crushed

glass to act as a fluxing agent and bind with clay in

the production of bricks and ceramics. This resultsin a reduction of the firing temperature and so has

the energy saving benefits described earlier which

are particularly attractive in this industry. Research

has shown that the inclusion of glass in bricks

results in increased frost resistance, greater

compressive strength and a lower water absorption.

Volume potential

The estimated UK domestic market in ceramics hasthe potential to use up to 20,000t/a of waste glass.

This is in addition to the volumes that could

potentially be used in the brick making industry

(using a figure of 5% glass inclusion in the

economic analysis) make the combined brick and

ceramics markets a significant potential consumerof waste glass.

Specifications

The specifications for glass in order for its use in

this sector (Table 7) are relatively easy to achieve

and in particular the ability of this industry to

consume any colour and both flat and container

glass gives this sector significant potential in the

UKs waste glass market.

Table 7 Brick specifications

Standard Specifications

Particle Size

>106m (


21/31

NICHE MARKETS & OTHER POTENTIALS

There a number of niche markets for recycled glass

that use it for a variety of applications. Although

the total volume potential for these markets is small

in comparison to the others described it is often inthese applications that the selling price is high.

There are a number of other potential markets for

waste glass which include paint filler, zeolites,

foam glass and glass tiles. Paint filler can use finely

ground glass for a specialist exterior paint with a

sand textured finish, whilst foam glass is used in

the construction industry and glass tiles are popularparticularly in the Scandinavian market (Table 8).

Table 8 Niche market company products

Company Name Product Glass use t/a

Crystal architectural Products Resin composite flooring 100

Eight Inch Furniture/worktops 10

Freeform Arts Trust Pavers/blocks 40

GreenGlass UK Wine glasses 450

Recycled Glass CompanyDecorative Aggregates primarily

decorative glass chipping1000

Windmill AggregatesDecorative Aggregates used in the

glass gravel and floral industries1500

William Tracey Decorative Aggregates 1000

The Clean Washington Centre(Research)

Paint Filler Particle size must range between0.2 and 0.4m. Current UK market

is very small

US Research Zeolites

Finer glass is more reactive and

therefore a particle size of


22/31

SUMMARYOFVOLUMEPOTENTIALSANDMARKETROUTES

The following section summarises the development

in markets from 1999 to present and in the future

for the use of glass cullet. In addition to this withthe current waste glass arisings exceeding 3 million

tonnes per year this section summarises the present

total market capacity by sector for waste glass and

the potential capacity for waste glass (taking into

account increases in actual market capacity and

potential market entrants). In 1999 the primary

markets for recycled glass were in the glass sector

itself with the dominant intake in the container

sector. However, the aggregates sector wasemerging in the reuse of glass cullet. The 2002

figures (Figure 5) show that although the container

sector still remains the dominant player in the

recycled glass market the aggregates sector is

increasing steadily in its use of glass cullet. In

addition to this there are emerging markets in the

filtration and abrasives sectors that show increasing

potential as research continues and new markets

emerge. However, there is not only an increasing

potential of current market players to take in greater

loads of recycled glass but advances in research aregiving rise to realise potentials for new market

entrants that could consume significant proportions

of waste glass. If current market players realise

their potential for consuming glass cullet and the

potential entrants realise their potential for

consuming waste glass the market structure could

change significantly (Figure 6). The aggregates

sector would theoretically be the dominant market

player. However, the realistic view is that thechange in market structure although continuing to

develop form the 2002 figures is unlikely to reach

the proposed state in Figure 6. The main barriers to

this are the specifications for each and the

economic feasibility of using glass in low value end

markets such as the aggregates sector.

Figure 5 - recycled glass market current players and market dominance5%

8%

10%

0%

0%

0%

Container

Flat

Fibre


23/31

BARRIERSTO ENTRY

Every sector is subject to a variation of

specifications to which the glass cullet must adhereto be used. However, there are additional barriers to

entry in some sectors and some factors are more

critical than others. The following section

highlights the main factors that pose problems in

the entry of glass cullet into that market.

Container Sector

The main problem faced in this sector is the colour

imbalance although measures have been taken toreduce this and this is now less of a problem than it

was a few years ago.

Flat glass sector

The critical factor for the flat glass sector is the

contamination levels of the glass which from post-

consumer sources are still unpredictable and a

significant barrier to the intake of such cullet by the

flat glass producers.

Fibre glass sector

The quality requirements of continuous re-

enforcement fibre manufacturers is still too

stringent to allow the use of external cullet

however, insulation fibre manufacturers use a

considerable amount of external cullet. The ceramic

content is the particular problem for contaminating

fib l d i d h f d ll

abrasive sector to make use of the alternative but

recently this has become more available. The recent

emergence of a UK Market for recycled glass

however still faces problems such as an apparentweak enforcement of the sand blasting legislation

that limits the benefits of glass in environmentally

sensitive areas. In addition to this the overall

abrasive market is declining although the market

share for glass abrasives is increasing.

Bricks & Ceramics

The main barrier for the UK is the insufficient

grinding capacity to allow the production of therequired particle sizes for the use in the ceramics

sector in particular, but also for brick production. In

the potter industry there must be increasing work to

address the metal contamination levels of external

cullet as these could be detrimental to the glazing

process.

Niche Markets

The main problems faced in these markets are themarkets themselves which are small and therefore

subject to the fluctuation, in supply and demand to

a larger extent. The ability to source the required

materials at the required time are therefore critical.


24/31

GLASS AND THE AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

WHYGLASS?

Table 9 Composition of an average automobile

Material Average Weight (kg) % Weight

Ferrous Metal 780 68.3

Light Non-Ferrous Metal 72 6.3

Heavy Non-Ferrous Metal 17 1.5

Electrical/Electronics 8 0.7

Fluids 24 2.1

Plastics 104 9.1Carpet 4 0.4

Process Polymers 12 1.1

Tyres 40 3.5

Rubber 18 1.6

Glass 33 2.9

Batter 13 1.1

Other 17 1.5

TOTAL 1142 100

The table above () details the composition of an

average passenger car for 2000.

Materials such as the metal fraction of motor

vehicles are relatively easy to recover and therefore

have been for many years. With the adoption of the

EU Directive on End-of-Life Vehicles in 2000

figures have estimated that the automotive industry

sheets of glass. This acts as an adhesive in the event

that the glass breaks whereby the glass does not

shatter but remains in contact with the PVB.

Another inclusion in the rear windscreens of

automotives is metal in the form of heating


25/31

construction applications (most commonly 6mm).

Flat glass is rejected at production if any optical

defects greater than 0.5mm are found and therefore

it is mandatory that contaminants are less than

0.3mm in size to present production loss.

AUTOMOTIVEGLASSASWASTE

There are three main stages at which automotive

glass can enter the waste steam. The first is at the

production stage. In shaping and forming excess

glass is cut to achieve the final product. This waste

glass and any breakages during the production

phase are able to be recycled as cullet as the sourceis known (downstream processing) and

contamination low. The second is in the window

replacement sector. Such businesses replace the

broken window with a new one and again this is a

fairly low contamination source providing it is not

mixed with other waste sources prior to

transportation to a glass re-processor. Also, many

windscreen replacements are often due to a chip in

the main viewing section of the car windscreen andas such the glass can be removed almost whole

which helps to minimise contamination. This

process is driven by the incorporation of recycling

cost into the replacement cost which is ultimately

born by the consumer or their insurance company

and as such delivers a relatively low contaminated

cullet at virtually no cost to the cullet processor.

The final fate of glass in motor vehicles is at the

End-of-Life stage which could be through the

natural expiration of the vehicle or prematurethrough road incidents. The following sections

address the fate of glass at the ELV stage.

ELV glass

Prior to the ELV Directive and the increasing

government pressures on producer responsibility

the disposal of a motor vehicle at the end-of-its

natural life was the responsibility of the owner at

that time. In the event that the ELV was such due toa road incident or similar then it was most likely

that the ELV would become the responsibility of

the insurance company who would then seek the

relevant disposal routes for that car. However,

following the increasing producer responsibility

regulations and the ELV Directive it is now the

responsibility of vehicle manufacturers to dispose

correctly of all vehicles on the market from 2002

and by 2007 they will be responsible for thedisposal of ALL vehicles regardless of age.

There are two main routes for ELVs (after vehicle

collection) primarily dependent on whether they are

premature or natural (Figure 7).


26/31

Salvage operators work on behalf of insurance

companies in cases where an ELV has been

subjected to an incident of some sort that involves

an insurance claim. After this as with natural ELVs

the vehicle passes to the dismantlers most often forrecovery of used parts.

Dismantling in the UK

In contrast to the 1999 figures, estimates form the

Department of trade and Industry (DTI) in 2002

quote the numbers of dismantling companies in the

UK to be between 2000 and 3500. Under the

Environmental Protection Act 1990 UK operating

dismantlers are required to be authorised orregistered exempt so the apparent reduction in

figures may be due to the increasingly stringent

environmental standards on these companies.

However, as the majority are small family run firms

within only a few (approximately 1000) larger

firms it is unfortunately more likely to be the case

that there are those companies still operating

outside the required standards and therefore not

registered in the above way. At present there are1553 dismantlers and scrap yards affiliated to trade

associations.

If the automotive glass is to be recycled at the

dismantling stage it must first be removed from the

vehicle. The ease of removal is dependent upon the

method of sealing used in manufacture. The use of

a rubberised gasket seal is comparatively easy when

considering removal of the whole window however

crushed and shredded into pieces. These are then

sorted using a variety of methods into product

streams. The main product fraction is shredded steel

which accounts for approximately 70% of the

output whilst the remaining 30% is primaryshredder fluff (25%) and heavy media. The

shredder fluff is comprised mainly of foam in

addition to light weight non-metallic materials

whilst the heavy material is often a variable mix of

materials such as rubber and concrete. Modern

plants use floatation methods for separation of the

materials (Dense Media Separation) and following

separation the heavy fraction can be processed

further at heavy media plants at which stage somematerials such as copper, aluminium, magnesium,

glass and plastics can be removed whilst the

remainder shredder fluff is currently land filled.

There is ongoing research into the possibility of

further separating the materials in shredder fluff.

If the glass is separated sufficiently form the other

materials with contamination below the limits set

out in the glass sector specifications and thealternative markets then it may follow one of these

routes to fetch a reasonable market price. However,

in most cases the concrete contamination is too

significant and the only real market available for

the waste is in the aggregates sector. In the event

that this is still unsuitable the only option left is

landfill.


27/31

minutes/vehicle. The main cost incurred at this

stage is the labour cost of dismantling and the cost

equivalent of this ranges between approximately

2.50 and 3.50 per vehicle.

Toughened glass, which cannot be cut out, isremoved by breaking the glass in situ using a

pointed implement and the subsequent small

fragments are collected. However, even with this

technique much of the glass is lost and there is an

increased chance of contamination with other small

fragments.

The value of the waste glass from ELV is dependent

primarily upon its quality but general market cullet prices can range form as low as 5/tonne up to

45/tonne for clear cullet of sufficient quality.

Appendix 1 details the realistic and potential

revenue of glass cullet from ELVs over the current

market range of cullet prices and greater prices. The

total minimum and maximum costs of dismantling

are calculated using the values of 2.50 and 3.50

per vehicle respectively and the total ELV waste

glass arisings per year. These figures are used tocalculate the net income to the car manufacturers

(only taking into account simple sales and cost

prices and excluding secondary cost such as

transportation and reprocessing). These are

projected upwards for increased cullet values to

determine the market price required to give a net

income rather than net loss.

likely to be the car manufacturers that must absorb

the cost of this process as it becomes necessary to

recycle glass in order to reach ELV Directive

targets at least at present if not for some

considerable time into the future. The solution tothe problem may therefore lie in the manufacturing

stage such that bonding methods are changed and

developed to make glass removal more efficient at

the ELV stage of a cars life cycle.


28/31

KEY REFERENCES

Department of Trade & Industry (2002)End of Life Vehicles (ELV)Waste Arisings and Recycling Rates.

Enviros (May 2004)Recycled Glass Market Study & Standards Review 2004 Update. The Waste & ResourcesAction Programme (Published May 2004).

Glass Recycling Report. (Issue 1) (2002) Glasspac.

Glass Stakeholder Update. (2003). The Waste & Resources Action Programme.

Hurley, J (2003)A Market Survey for Foam Glass. The Waste & Resources Action Programme (Published April2003).

Kollamthodi, S, Bird, A. B., Elghali, L, Johnstone, K, Wayman, M & McColl, V, A N (TRL Limited) (2003)Data Required To Monitor Compliance With The End Of Life Vehicles Directive. Prepared for DEFRA project

report PR SE/483/02.

Kollamthodi, S, Johnstone, K & Elghali, L, (TRL Limited) (2003)Data Required To Monitor Compliance With

The End Of Life Vehicles Directive. Part 2 Report Demonstrating compliance. Prepared for DEFRA project

report PR SE/518/02.

Recovered container glass specification for quality and guidance for good practice in collection (PAS 101)(2003). The Waste & Resources Action Programme.

Smith, Dr. A. S. (CERAM Building Technology 2004) To demonstrate commercial viability of incorporating

ground glass in bricks with reduced emissions and energy savings. The Waste & Resources ActionProgramme (Published March 2004).


29/31

Current situation at current dismantling costs of 2.50-3.50 per vehicle

Market Price () ofcullet/tonne

Realisticrevenue*

Potentialrevenue**

Cost of dismantling () Net income

Min(2.50/vehicle)

Max(3.50/vehicle)

realistic mincost

realistic maxcost

potential mincost

potential maxcost

5 95,000.00 260,000.00 5,274,917.50 7,384,884.50 -5,179,917.50 -7,289,884.50 -5,014,917.50 -7,124,884.50

10 190,000.00 520,000.00 5,274,917.50 7,384,884.50 -5,084,917.50 -7,194,884.50 -4,754,917.50 -6,864,884.5015 285,000.00 780,000.00 5,274,917.50 7,384,884.50 -4,989,917.50 -7,099,884.50 -4,494,917.50 -6,604,884.50

APPENDIX I


30/31

20 380,000.00 1,040,000.00 5,274,917.50 7,384,884.50 -4,894,917.50 -7,004,884.50 -4,234,917.50 -6,344,884.50

25 475,000.00 1,300,000.00 5,274,917.50 7,384,884.50 -4,799,917.50 -6,909,884.50 -3,974,917.50 -6,084,884.50

30 570,000.00 1,560,000.00 5,274,917.50 7,384,884.50 -4,704,917.50 -6,814,884.50 -3,714,917.50 -5,824,884.50

35 665,000.00 1,820,000.00 5,274,917.50 7,384,884.50 -4,609,917.50 -6,719,884.50 -3,454,917.50 -5,564,884.50

40 760,000.00 2,080,000.00 5,274,917.50 7,384,884.50 -4,514,917.50 -6,624,884.50 -3,194,917.50 -5,304,884.50

45 855,000.00 2,340,000.00 5,274,917.50 7,384,884.50 -4,419,917.50 -6,529,884.50 -2,934,917.50 -5,044,884.5050 950,000.00 2,600,000.00 5,274,917.50 7,384,884.50 -4,324,917.50 -6,434,884.50 -2,674,917.50 -4,784,884.50

55 1,045,000.00 2,860,000.00 5,274,917.50 7,384,884.50 -4,229,917.50 -6,339,884.50 -2,414,917.50 -4,524,884.50

60 1,140,000.00 3,120,000.00 5,274,917.50 7,384,884.50 -4,134,917.50 -6,244,884.50 -2,154,917.50 -4,264,884.50

65 1,235,000.00 3,380,000.00 5,274,917.50 7,384,884.50 -4,039,917.50 -6,149,884.50 -1,894,917.50 -4,004,884.50

70 1,330,000.00 3,640,000.00 5,274,917.50 7,384,884.50 -3,944,917.50 -6,054,884.50 -1,634,917.50 -3,744,884.50

75 1,425,000.00 3,900,000.00 5,274,917.50 7,384,884.50 -3,849,917.50 -5,959,884.50 -1,374,917.50 -3,484,884.50

80 1,520,000.00 4,160,000.00 5,274,917.50 7,384,884.50 -3,754,917.50 -5,864,884.50 -1,114,917.50 -3,224,884.50

85 1,615,000.00 4,420,000.00 5,274,917.50 7,384,884.50 -3,659,917.50 -5,769,884.50 -854,917.50 -2,964,884.50

90 1,710,000.00 4,680,000.00 5,274,917.50 7,384,884.50 -3,564,917.50 -5,674,884.50 -594,917.50 -2,704,884.50

95 1,805,000.00 4,940,000.00 5,274,917.50 7,384,884.50 -3,469,917.50 -5,579,884.50 -334,917.50 -2,444,884.50

100 1,900,000.00 5,200,000.00 5,274,917.50 7,384,884.50 -3,374,917.50 -5,484,884.50 -74,917.50 -2,184,884.50

101 1,919,000.00 5,252,000.00 5,274,917.50 7,384,884.50 -3,355,917.50 -5,465,884.50 -22,917.50 -2,132,884.50

102 1,938,000.00 5,304,000.00 5,274,917.50 7,384,884.50 -3,336,917.50 -5,446,884.50 29,082.50 -2,080,884.50

142 2,698,000.00 7,384,000.00 5,274,917.50 7,384,884.50 -2,576,917.50 -4,686,884.50 2,109,082.50 -884.50

143 2,717,000.00 7,436,000.00 5,274,917.50 7,384,884.50 -2,557,917.50 -4,667,884.50 2,161,082.50 51,115.50

277 5,263,000.00 14,404,000.00 5,274,917.50 7,384,884.50 -11,917.50 -2,121,884.50 9,129,082.50 7,019,115.50

278 5,282,000.00 14,456,000.00 5,274,917.50 7,384,884.50 7,082.50 -2,102,884.50 9,181,082.50 7,071,115.50

388 7,372,000.00 20,176,000.00 5,274,917.50 7,384,884.50 2,097,082.50 -12,884.50 14,901,082.50 12,791,115.50

389 7,391,000.00 20,228,000.00 5,274,917.50 7,384,884.50 2,116,082.50 6,115.50 14,953,082.50 12,843,115.50

* Realistic amounts of ELV glass estimated at 19,000 tonnes per year** Potential amounts of ELV glass estimated at 52,000 tonnes per year


31/31

Dismantling costs reduction needed to bring cullet back into range of market pricesRealistic revenue based on realistic glass tonnages available

Market Price () of cullet/tonne

Realistic RevenueCost of dismantling/vehicle Total Cost of dismantling Net income

Threshold (red) Threshold (black) Red Black Red Black

5 95,000 0.05 0.04 105,498 84,399 -10,498 10,60110 190,000 0.10 0.09 210,997 189,897 -20,997 103

15 285,000 0.14 0.13 295,395 274,296 -10,395 10,704

20 380,000 0.19 0.18 400,894 379,794 -20,894 206

25 475,000 0.23 0.22 485,292 464,193 -10,292 10,807

30 570,000 0.28 0.27 590,791 569,691 -20,791 309

35 665,000 0.32 0.31 675,189 654,090 -10,189 10,910

40 760,000 0.37 0.36 780,688 759,588 -20,688 412

45 855,000 0.41 0.40 865,086 843,987 -10,086 11,013

50 950,000 0.46 0.45 970,585 949,485 -20,585 515

Potential revenue based on potential glass tonnages available

Market Price () of cullet/tonne

Potential Revenue Cost of dismantling/vehicle Total Cost of dismantling Net incomeThreshold (red) Threshold (black) Red Black Red Black

5 260,000 0.13 0.12 274,296 253,196 -14,296 6,804

10 520,000 0.25 0.24 527,492 506,392 -7,492 13,608

15 780,000 0.37 0.36 780,688 759,588 -688 20,412

20 1,040,000 0.50 0.49 1,054,984 1,033,884 -14,984 6,116

25 1,300,000 0.62 0.61 1,308,180 1,287,080 -8,180 12,920

30 1,560,000 0.74 0.73 1,561,376 1,540,276 -1,376 19,724

35 1,820,000 0.87 0.86 1,835,671 1,814,572 -15,671 5,428

40 2,080,000 0.99 0.98 2,088,867 2,067,768 -8,867 12,232

45 2,340,000 1.11 1.10 2,342,063 2,320,964 -2,063 19,036

50 2,600,000 1.24 1.23 2,616,359 2,595,259 -16,359 4,741

APPENDIX II

uk _glass & recycled glass production & market _report care2004

Documents