EU End of Waste Criteria for biologically treating biodegradable wastes

Legislation, Definition and Criteria associated with End of Waste Workshop 18th November, Manchester Town Hall

Tim Evans PhD, FCIWEM, MRSC, CEnv, CChem, FACTS

[represented EWA at workshops at JRC Seville]

When is a waste not a waste?

• Waste is stuff you throw away A product is something for which there is a market, something people want A product must be of satisfactory quality for the intended use (implied term of Sale of Goods Act)

Pragmatic Anglo Saxon case law approach

• Continental European approach is to catalogue everything If something is in the Waste Catalogue it is “waste” until it meets criteria that say it isn’t

Background information about the project

• The WFD 2008 cites compost as EoW candidate explicitly

– End of Waste Criteria – Biodegradable Waste Recital (22) ‘possible categories of waste for which ‘end-of-waste’ specifications and criteria should be developed, including, among others, construction and demolition waste, some ashes and slag, scrap metals, aggregates, tyres, textiles, compost, waste paper and glass’.

WFD 2008 new procedure, under Article 6(1), which stipulates conditions under which End of Waste (EoW) criteria may be developed, as follows: • ‘Certain specified waste shall cease to be waste within the meaning of

point (1) of Article 3 when it has undergone a recovery, including recycling, operation and complies with specific criteria to be developed in accordance with the following conditions: a. the substance or object is commonly used for specific purposes; b. a market or demand exists for such a substance or object; c. the substance or object fulfils the technical requirements for the specific

purposes and meets the existing legislation and standards applicable to products; and

d. the use of the substance or object will not lead to overall adverse environmental or human health impacts.

• The criteria shall include limit values for pollutants where necessary and shall take into account any possible adverse environmental effects of the substance or object.’

Seems to me that land app of biosolids meets all those tests

Background information about the project

Comitology (Art. 5a(1)), ‘Regulatory procedure with scrutiny’:

1. The Commission takes initiative, drafting and proposing a Commission Decision on EoW for each waste stream

2. A technical adaptation committee (TAC) composed of MS delegates votes its adoption

3. Scrutiny from Council and Parliament

Background information about the project

Conceptual illustration of the principle, framework conditions and elements of end-of waste (EoW) criteria

Building on shifting sand1 JRC working docs and workshops on EoW Criteria

• After 1st workshop [I wasn’t there] – only compost [not composted sludge] not digestate

• After 2nd workshop – compost and digestate including sludge and post-collection-separation [MBT]

– “No scientific reason to exclude sludge or MBT”

– Anything that meets the output criteria is OK

• Howls of protest from MS (including Defra/WRAP)

1 the USEPA 14 pathway risk assessment cost US$15 million and took 11 years; it is documented and evidence-based

Hazard & Risk

• Hazard - potential source of harm

• Harm - physical injury or damage to

– the health of people or

– damage to property or the environment

• Risk - combination of the probability of occurrence of harm

and the severity of that harm

• Paracelsus (1493-1541):

"Dosis facit venenum."

("The dose makes the poison.")

Source ► Pathway ► (dose) Receptor

USA based on risk assessment • postulate the hazards;

• sample of WwTWs select representative of the whole country

• 50 page questionnaire sent to 479 works to gather more detailed information about treatment, use and disposal of biosolids;

• sample the biosolids from a sub-set of 208 works and analyse the samples for the 412 analytes (342 organic, 70 inorganic) plus pathogens;

• model 14 exposure pathways using all the available literature on crop uptake, food chain concentration etc., tolerable intakes and competing exposure;

• publish the methodology

• test the exposure levels for the hazards presenting the highest risk;

• subject the proposed exposure limits and methodology to 183 day public comment period and international peer review;

• analyse the response from the peer review (5500 pages of comment from 656 commentators) and modify the assessment;

• publish the revised risk assessed tolerable exposure limits.

• JRC didn’t assess risk

Exposure pathways used in US EPA risk assessment

Limit values for potentially toxic elements and other pollutants in sewage sludges (mg/kgDS)

CEN CR 13846:2000 Recommendations To Preserve And Extend Sludge Utilisation And Disposal Routes

Country Pb Cd Cr Cu Ni Hg Zn As F Se

86/278/EEC 750-1200

20-40 1000-1750

1000-1750

300-400

16-25 2500-4000

Belgium Flanders 300 6 250 750 100 5 2500 150

Walloon 500 10 500 600 100 10 2000

Denmark mg/kgDS 120 0.8 100 1000 30 0.8 4000

Denmark mg/kg P 10,000 200 2500 200

Germany pH 5-6 900 5 900 800 200 8 2000

pH > 6 900 10 900 800 200 8 2500

Finland 100 1.5 300 600 100 1 1500

France 800 10 1000 1000 200 10 3000

UK Grassland 1000 1200

Ireland 750 20 - 1000 300 16 2500

Italy 750 20 - 1000 300 10 2500

Luxembourg Reference 750 20 1000 1000 300 16 2500

Limit 1200 40 1750 1750 400 25 4000

Netherlands 100 1.25 75 75 30 4.75 300 15

USA 300 39 1200 1500 420 17 2800 41 36

3rd workshop

• A U-turn was a political necessity for JRC

– JRC had to justify excluding sludge and MBT from Scope having said previously there was no scientific reason

• Fall-back argument “it is in the legislation of MS”

• Revision of EU Fertiliser Regs hopes to use EU EoW

• DG ENV is considering whether in the WFD recycling targets

– will achieving EoW be the qualification for “recycling”?

– will use on land be the qualification for “recycling”?

3rd workshop background doc

• Relax from 100 mgCu/kgDS to 200 and 400 mgZn/kgDS to 600 [but label “high Cu and/or Zn” – neither is high agronomically]

• No relation to N:P:K content

• Bring in 6 mgPAH16/kgDS because – It is the least expensive of the organic suites

– PAH is in the legislation of some MS [ not necessarily 16]

• No consideration of risk from PAH

• Inconvenient truths – Greenwaste and some biowaste have more PAH than most

– Reproducibility limits of HORIZONTAL PAH similar to means

Composted sludge only, no digested samples submitted

The UK contribution of samples was woefully lacking

Cd

Ni

Cu

Zn

Pb Hg

PAH16

Yves Decelle & Jean-Luc Martel (2011) Compost Quality Assessment and End of Waste Process: Results of Two Ring Tests Performed in 2009 and 2011. SARDINIA SYMPOSIUM

End of Waste for compost : useful ?

• Free transportation around Europe : not useful. The monetary value of compost is so low that it does not travel. Local use is the main outlet.

• Harmonisation of compost standards in Europe : not scientifically justified. Soils characteristics, climate, agriculture, social habits, environmental concerns are very different throughout Europe. National Standards are the best environmental solution.

• European Product Status : a burden to National Product Status. There are strong differences between Member States. Some MS (F, UK) want to include MSW compost while Northern countries will never accept MSW compost. Inclusion or exclusion of MSW compost in European End of Waste will be detrimental to one or the other.

• Easier access to land : not obtained through End of Waste. The waste legislation will no longer be applicable to compost, preventing waste Authorities to regulate/limit its use. But agricultural and environmental protection legislations will still be applicable. Member States and Regional Authorities will be able to set agricultural standards that suit their own country.

Final draft EoW criteria

Organic matter minimum 15%

minimum stability

(HOR tested EN16087 parts 1 and 2 using stable compost – didn’t validate with digestate) (To prevent shred and spread)

Compost Max 15 mmol O2/kgOM/h or 16 mg CO2/gOM/d EN16087-1 or Self-heating test max 20 °C EN16087-2

Digestate Max 50 mmol O2/kgOM/h EN16087-1

VFA max 1500 mg/l Residual biogas potential max 0.25 l/ gVS

Microbiology No Salmonella spp. in 25 g sample E. Coli max 1000 CFU/g fresh mass

weeds and plant propagules Max 2 viable weed seeds per litre of compost/digestate

Macroscopic impurities 0.5% on dry matter weight for glass, metal and plastics >2mm to be determined by the dry sieving method

heavy metals and organic pollutants: mg/kg (dry weight)

Cd 1.5 Cr 100

Cu 200 Hg 1

Ni 50 Pb 120

Zn 600 PAH16 6

Project HORIZONTAL method transferred to CEN - PAH in sludge

• Samples were dried and ground before being distributed to labs around the EU

– Eliminated variation from “as received” preparation

• Lab results mg∑PAH/kg 7.49; 7.56; 8.36; 9.16; 10.64; 12.11; 12.11; 12.19; 12.49; 13.06; 13.60; 14.32; 14.99; 15.75; 20.86

• Terrible reproducibility between labs

• draft EoW - limit value 6 mg/kg

Materials added to soil to supply 90 kgP2O5/ha fertiliser replacement value – because sewage sludge has so much P

it supplies the least of the EoW criteria analytes

Food-based digestate

Sewage sludge

digestate*

Manure based

digestate

Pig slurry* Cattle slurry*

Concentration in digestate or slurry

addition to soil (kg/ha)

600 mgZn/kgDS 9.31 1.44 5.78 2.40 5.40 kgZn/ha

200 mgCu/kgDS 3.10 0.48 1.93 0.80 1.80 kgCu/ha

50 mgNi/kgDS 0.78 0.12 0.48 0.20 0.45 kgNi/ha

1.5 mgCd/kgDS 0.023 0.004 0.014 0.006 0.014 kgCd/ha

120 mgPb/kgDS 1.86 0.29 1.16 0.48 1.08 kgPbha

1.0 mgHg/kgDS 0.016 0.002 0.010 0.004 0.009 kgHg/ha

6 mgPAH16/kgDS 0.093 0.014 0.058 0.024 0.054 kgPAH16/ha

Trace element fertiliser application 15 kgCu/ha or 15 kgZn/ha Bordeaux Mixture 10 kgCu/ha per application

• EU EoW will supersede national EoW (PAS 100 110)

• For out-of-scope materials MS can make national EoW – But national EoW won’t have mutual recognition so

can’t be traded across borders

• In-scope material cannot qualify for national EoW e.g. if it fails EU EoW

• Anything treated in a waste treatment plant is waste

• Final draft of scope next slide

The scope includes hygienised and stabilized compost and digestate materials obtained through a biological waste treatment process exclusively using non-contaminated input materials from the separate collection of bio-waste, as well as from biodegradable residues from agriculture (including manure), forestry, fishery and horticulture, or any such previously composted or digested material. 'Biodegradable' is defined as reaching a biodegradation level of at least 90% in less than 6 months under normal composting or digestion process conditions. 'Bio-waste' is defined according to Article 3(4) of the Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC as biodegradable garden and park waste, food and kitchen waste from households, restaurants, caterers and retail premises and comparable waste from food processing plants. 'Contaminated' is defined as having a level of chemical, biological or physical contamination that may cause difficulties in meeting the end-of-waste output product quality requirements or that may result in other adverse environmental or human health impacts from the normal use of the output compost/digestate material. 'Separate collection' is defined according to Article 3(11) of the Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC as the collection where a waste stream is kept separately by type and nature so as to facilitate a specific treatment.

The scope excludes compost and digestate materials partially or completely derived from contaminated input materials or from the organic fraction of mixed municipal household waste separated through mechanical, physicochemical, biological and/or manual treatment, from sewage sludge, from sludges derived from the paper industry or from non-biodegradable materials.

Revision of EU Fertiliser Regulation

• Currently limited to [mainstream] mineral fertilisers

• GD Enterprise wants it to cover all fertilisers (inorganic, organic and organo-mineral, liming materials, soil improvers, growing media and plant biostimulants

– Inconvenient truth: some phosphate fertilisers >60mgCd/kgP2O5 biosolids <30mgCd/kgP2O5

• Wants to use EoW for SI and GM

Will it happen? • I thought:-

– Common sense, rationality and science would prevail • Being able to measure EoW parameters reproducibly across the EU is an

important prerequisite isn’t it?

• Ludicrous to pass in one MS, crosses a border and then fail

– It would be difficult to achieve political consensus amongst 28 MS • Germany wants it : France does not

– Like the biowaste directive it will be shelved

• Maybe I am wrong – DG ENV expects to have “Services agreement” and to have a

proposal mid-2013 • Defra thinks this is likely too

• If there is a proposal, the final hurdle will be comitology

TIM EVANS

E N V I R O N M E N T

tim@timevansenvironment.com

• The proposed EoW criteria are arbitrary

• EU labs can’t measure parameters reproducibly

• Focus has been on what EoW materials shall not contain with no consideration of how useful they are – Customers want to know about the “goodies” and assume the “baddies”

are taken care of - satisfactory quality for the intended use

• Revision of the Fertiliser Regs (to encompass everything) will use EoW for non-mineral materials

• European dream is of mutual recognition – Major producer, Suez says trans border trade is not interesting but Nanny

knows better

• There is still a steep hill up which the EC has to push the project but they might do it

Wrapping up