Objectives of the project

1

BiPRO

Study to facilitate the implementation of certain waste

related provisions of the Regulation on Persistent

Organic Pollutants (POPs)

Meeting of the Committee for the Adaptation to scientific and technical Progress of EC-Legislation on Waste

June 16, 2005 Brussels

2

BiPRO

Objectives of the project

POPs Regulation 2004/850/EC

information and decision basis to facilitate the implementation

1. occurrence of POPs in waste: compilation and evaluation of existing data

2. proposal for concentration limits: methodology and recommendations

3. environmental preferability: methodology and case studies

4. proposal for reference measurement methods

3

BiPRO

Information sources

extensive questionnaire

thanks for more than 100 answers

conferences personal meetings visits of plants telephone and e-mail discussion already available studies and data, statistics, literature, BREF

documents, internet stakeholder workshop internet discussion on draft final report

4

BiPRO

Differentiated approach for waste and pollutant flows

Two types of important information:

• Quantities of pollutants formed and released

• Volumes and structure of contaminated

wastes to be managed

waste volume

limit value

Separate mass flows are established for

• PCDD/Fs • PCB • POP pesticides • other POPs: HCB, HCH, HxBB

5

BiPRO

Topic 2

European mass flow for POPs with a specific focus on waste

PCDD/PCDF

PCB

POP pesticides

other POPs

6

BiPRO

Mass flow results for dioxins: The overall flow of PCCD/Fs

Based on average concentrations the overall flow of PCDD/F to waste and products totals 21 kg/year21 kg/year.

Emissions: 4.2 kg/yAnthropogenic

discharge

Destruction

Waste for disposal: 13.3 kg/y

1.9 kg/y

Recycling:3.4 kg/y

Environment EU 25

> 200 kg **Landfill: Inert waste: 0.3 kg/yNon-haz. waste: 7.1 kg/yTemp. storage: 0.09 kg/ynon-haz./haz. waste: 1.8 kg/yHaz. waste including underground: 2.2 kg/y

From activities:~ 17.5 kg/y

Inert wasteNon-haz. wasteTemp. storage

Non-haz./haz. WasteHaz. Waste incl. underground

Landfill

>200 kg**

Inert wasteNon-haz. wasteTemp. storage

Non-haz./haz. WasteHaz. Waste incl. underground

Landfill

>200 kg**?

*

7

BiPRO

Mass flow results for dioxins: An overview on sources

Anthropogenic discharge

Recycling:3.4 kg/y

From activities:

~ 17.5 kg/y

Sources20,900 g/year

Secondary Zn: 181 g/y

Secondary Al: 500 g/y

Secondary Cu: 226 g/y

Fe sintering: 1,400 g/y

Fe smelting: 143 g/y

EAF: 1,401 g/yHWI: 78 g/y

Hospital WI: 143 g/y

PP coal: 1,651 g/y

EDC production: 13 g/y

PP biomass: 606 g/y

MSWI: ~ 1,999 g/y

Compost: 160 g/y

Road traffic: 56 g/y

Sewage sludge: 297 g/y

336 g/y

Domestic burn: 3,656g/y

MSW: 8,404 g/y

8

BiPRO

Mass flow results for dioxins: An overview on endpoints


Waste for disposal: 13.3 kg/y

From activities:~ 17.5 kg/year

Waste16,350 g/year

Recycling / recovery

3,400 g/year

Temporary storage

92 g/year

Landfill for inert waste273 g/year

Landfill for non haz. waste7,125 g/year

Landfill for hazard. waste*2,197 g/year

Landfill for hazard. or non haz. waste**

1,780 g/year

Hazard. waste incineration~200 g/year

Non haz. waste incineration1,741 g/year

Emissions: 4.2 kg/year

9

BiPRO

Dioxin waste flow: Means and ranges of contamination in different waste types

Distribution of Dioxin Contamination in Wastes

0,01

0,10

1,00

10,00

100,00

Waste and Product

Con

tam

inat

ion

Leve

l [pp

b]

minmax

mean

10

BiPRO

Dioxin waste flows: A detailed view on selected waste streamsExample: EAF

Metals, scrapm=69.5 Mt

c= negligible

Filter dustm= 1.1 Mt

c= 1.1 ng TEQ/g(0.1 - 10)

Landfill m= x

c=0 ng TEQ/g

Sold, used and recycledm= 5.6 Mt

c= 0.11 ng TEQ/g

Refractory bricksm= x

c= 0 ng TEQ/g

Temporary storagem= 0.5 Mt

c= 0.11 ng TEQ/g

Hazardous or non hazardous landfill

m= 5 Mtc= 0.11 ng TEQ/g

Slagm=10 Mt

c=0.001 ng TEQ/g(0.0002-0.003)

0

10 1224 0

616 557 61

0

in g PCDD/F TEQ/y

11

BiPRO

Correlation of Low POP content Limit and Waste Quantities: Dioxins

1 ppb 5 ppb 10 ppb 15 ppb

quantity POP waste[kt]

limit value

100300450

2,800

12

BiPRO

Mass Flow results for PCBs: The overall flow of PCBs

Based on average concentrations waste flows contain a total PCB load of 5,600 tons/year5,600 tons/year.

Emissions: 600 t/y

Destruction

Waste for disposal: 5,600 t/y

5,000 t/y

Recycling:< 15 t/y Environment EU 25

> 200,000 t**

Landfill: Inert waste: 300 t/yNon-haz. waste: ~ 11 t/yHaz. Waste including underground: 304 t/y

~6,250 t/y

Inert wasteNon-haz. waste

Haz. waste incl. underground

Remaining stock > 83,000 t

From activities:

Landfill

> 200,000 t**

*


13

BiPRO

Mass Flow Details on PCB: An overview on sources and endpoints

Product4.5 t/year

Sources6,252 t/year

Emission626 t/year

Waste5,626 t/year

WEEE: 5,210 t/year

Demolition: <1000 t/year Shredder: 18 t/year compost: 4.5 t/year

sewage sludge: 4.8 t/yearwaste oil: 14.9 t/year

4.5 t/year

Incineration hazardous

4,991 t/year

Incineration 4.35 t/year

landfilling hazardous/ underground storage

303.5 t/year

landfillingnon-hazardous~ 11.75 t/year

landfillinginert

300 t/year

Energy recovery3.15 t/year

Substance recovery10 t/year

14

BiPRO

1 ppm 5 ppm 10 ppm 20 ppm100

2,900

6,700

800

- construction and demolition waste is not included in the figure becausePCB contamination 1 ppm is already regulated

- excavated soil is not considered due to missing data

50 ppm

Correlation of Low POP content Limit Waste Quantities : PCB

quantity POP waste [kt]

470

15

BiPRO

Mass Flow results for POP pesticides: The overall flow of POP pesticides

Based on average concentrations waste flows contain a total POP load of 537 tons/year537 tons/year.

Emissions: 5 t/y

Destruction

Waste for disposal: 532 t/y (via POP pesticides)5 t/y (via contaminated material)

532 t/y

Environment EU 25> 100,000 t*

Landfill:5 t/y (via contaminated material)

*including exports, not considering lifetime effects

~ 3,000 t/y

3,000 t/y over use and export

Remaining stock > 5,370 tFrom activities:

Landfill: < 1,000 t rough estimation for

material, contaminated with

POP pesticides

Landfill *


16

BiPRO

Mass Flow results for other POPs: The overall flow of other POPs

Based on average concentrations waste flows contain a total POP load of 3,500 tons/year3,500 tons/year.

Emissions: < 100 t/y

Destruction

Waste for disposal: 3,500 t/y (HxBB, HCH)

700 t/y

Environment EU 25

HCH > 500,000 t

Landfill: 2,800 t/y (part is planned to be recycled)

> 1,000 t/y

Landfill:

< 200,000 t

Productionand import: Remaining stock

10,500 t> 900 t/y

Elimination due to use as intermediate

Landfill *


17

BiPRO

Next material flow

18

BiPRO

Topic 3

Methods for establishment of limit values and corresponding suggestions

Annex IV

19

BiPRO

Assessment Methodologies and their Outcome: Overview

low POP content limit (Annex IV) maximum limit (Annex V)

NoPOPwaste99/31/EC

POP waste POP content to be irreversibly destroyed

POP wastedisposal operation may depend

on environmental preferability (annex V)

xxxxxxx////////////////////////////////////////////////IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Method 1 for assessment of

low POP content limit

Method 1 for assessment ofmaximum limit

Method 2for decision on environmental preferability

exemplary application for important cases

Proposals for low POP content limits for different POPs (Annex IV)

Proposals for maximum limitsfor different POPs (Annex V)

Concentrationof POPin waste

20

BiPRO

Method 1 related to Annex IV: Basic Principle

Lower limitation criteria for determining limit values

(Limit value may not be below )

Range for suggestion of limit value

Upper limitation criteria for determining limit values

(Limit value has to be below)


21

BiPRO

Method 1: Lower Limitation Criteria for Low POP content Limit

A Analytical potential

B Environmental background contamination

C Disposal capacities

D Economic feasibility

22

BiPRO

Method 1: Upper Limitation Criteria

Z Existing limit values already agreed by European Union

Y unacceptable risks to human health and the environment

X Precautionary principle

23

BiPRO

Target Function for Range Reduction

"Reduce results for different waste matrices to the most unfavourable waste matrix"

target function result after application of target function

0.01 ppb 0.05 ppb 0.1 ppb

Analytical sensitivity in different waste matrices

24

BiPRO

Target function II (Precautionary principle)

"Each party shall …take …measures to reduce the total releases…with the goal of their continuing minimization and, where feasible, ultimate

elimination " (Stockholm Convention Article 5-7)

target function

result after application of target

function

range

25

BiPRO

Results for Criterion A: Analytical potential

Dioxins: 0.1 ppb for PCDD/PCDF-TEQ

PCBs: 1 ppm individual congener

30 ppm total PCB (based on Σ 6 cong. x 5)

POP pesticides: 1 ppm

other POPs: 1 ppm

26

BiPRO

Criterion A: Analytical Potential for Dioxin Measurements

Detection method: HRGC/HRMS

Cost (relative)

Dioxin concentrationdetected (TEQ)

Standard LimitationCrit. A

Cost for dioxin measurement in most unfavourable matrix

0.01 ppb

2.0

0.1 ppb 1.0 ppb 10 ppb

1.0

1.5

27

BiPRO

Results for Criterion B: Environmental POP levels (soil)

background concentration

uncertainty factor

criterion B

dioxin 0.001 ppb 10 0.01 ppb

PCBs 1 ppm 10 10 ppm

POP pesticides

0.1 ppm 100 10 ppm

other POPs

0.1 ppm 100 10 ppm

28

BiPRO

Modelled mean contamination levels for soil in European countries ( EMEP data base )

CountryPCCD/F

[pg TEQ/g]PCB [ng/g]

HCB [ng/g]

10-3 ppb 10-3 ppm 10-3 ppm

AT 0.93 23.31 0.37

BE 2.84 40.15 0.23

CY 0.03 0.25 0.02

CZ 1.44 20.13 0.24

DE 1.56 40.02 0.27

DK 0.63 13.09 0.20

EE 0.29 8.84 0.33

ES 0.26 7.04 0.15

FI 0.23 12.24 0.44

FR 0.94 17.75 0.22

GR 0.24 2.38 0.06

HU 0.56 12.80 0.36

IE 0.21 8.72 0.27

CountryPCCD/F

[pg TEQ/g]PCB [ng/g]

HCB [ng/g]

10-3 ppb 10-3 ppm 10-3 ppm

IT 0.67 19.26 0.20

LT 0.36 9.61 0.27

LU 2.88 25.99 0.26

LV 0.29 8.84 0.31

MT 0.03 0.13 0.02

NL 1.81 46.96 0.25

PL 0.75 13.72 0.32

PT 0.21 6.63 0.19

SE 0.31 11.52 0.29

SI 0.75 17.68 0.33

SK 0.81 13.15 0.33

UK 0.70 33.22 0.38

29

BiPRO

Results for Criterion C: Disposal Capacities

limit value additional amounts of

waste

capacities available

serious capacity problems expected

Dioxins: 5 ppb 0.4 Mio. t ok by 1 ppb

PCB: 5 ppm 1.5 Mio. t ok by 1 ppm

HCB, HCH, HxBB

≥ 10 ppm < 1 Mio. t ok no problems expected*

POP pesticides

≥ 10 ppm < 1 Mio. t ok no problems expected*

* based on available data

30

BiPRO

Criterion C: Disposal Capacities“Low POP content limits should be realistic against the background of disposal

capacities”

Material flows Scenario for low limit value

Needed quantities

Comparison to available capacities

(Transport, disposal, administration)

Realistic?

YES

NO

Continue with higher limit value

Use as lower limitation criterion

Assessment of possibility and time frame to build up

sufficient capacities

31

BiPRO


1 ppb 5 ppb 10 ppb 15 ppb

quantity POP waste[kt]

limit value

100300450

2,800

32

BiPRO

Results for Criterion D: Economic Feasibility

Feasible limit values:

Dioxins (TEQ): 10 ppb

PCB: 30 ppm*


other POPs: 1 ppm

* total PCB in terms of Σ 6 Cong. x 5

33

BiPRO

Criterion D: Economic feasibility“Low POP content Limits have to be in accordance with economic

feasibility”

Material flows Scenario for low limit value

Consequences for POP waste quantities

Monetary impacts compared

to status quo

Feasibility against economic

parametersFeasible?

YES

NO

Continue with higher limit value

Use as lower limitation criterion

34

BiPRO

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Am

ount

s of

Was

te [k

t/yea

r]

1ppb 5ppb 10ppb 15ppb

Threshold Limit

Waste Amounts Covered by Different Threshold Limits

DB - soot (wood)

DB - soot (fossil fuels)

Sec. Zinc - FGT residues

Sec. Alu - sludge from WWT

Sec. Alu - filter dust

Sec. Cu - KRS-oxid

Sec. Cu - filter dust

Iron smelting - FGT residues

Elec. Furnaces - filter dust

Sinter plants - FGT-residues

HospWI - fly ash

PP biomass - mixed ashes

MSWI - hydroxide sludge

MSWI - APC residues


35

BiPRO

Examples for important economic impacts due todioxin Low POP contents Limits (5, 10, 15 ppb)

• Recovery of aluminium filter dust- limit value of 5 ppb would reduce recovery potential significantly

(around 10,000 t estimated) minimum additional costs 2 mio. € expected- limit value of 10 ppb and 15 ppb would have only smaller impacts

(around 2,000 t estimated)

• Recovery of fly ash in asphalt- limit value of 5 ppb would reduce recovery potential significantly

(around 100,000 t estimated)- limit value of 10 ppb and 15 ppb would have only smaller impacts (around 10,000 t

and 2,000 t estimated)

conclusion: economic feasibility at a Low POP content Limit of 10 ppb

36

BiPRO

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Cov

ered

Am

ount

s [k

t/yea

r]

1 ppm 5 ppm 10 ppm 20 ppm 30 ppm 50 ppm

Threshold Limit

Waste Amounts Covered by Different Threshold Limits

Shredder - waste cableShredder - white goods and vehiclesWaste oils - lower contaminatedWaste oils - higher contaminatedEEEs - household equipmentEEEs - large equipment

Correlation of Low POP content Limit and Quantities of POP Waste: PCB

37

BiPRO

Examples for important economic impacts due to PCB Low POP contents Limits of 10, 30, 50 ppm

• Shredder residues- recycling of cables will be more difficult as part of shredder material will

become POP waste:For a limit value of 10 ppm up to 200,000 t are concerned, for limit values of 30 ppm or 50 ppm these amounts are significant lower (~ 25,000 t).

• Construction and demolition waste- significant amounts of waste will become POP waste, however already

existing regulation sets up 1 ppm limit value for inert waste disposal

conclusion: economic feasibility at a Low POP content Limit of 30 ppm

38

BiPRO

Low POP content Limit: Overall result of the lower limitation criteria

Criterion B0.01 ppb 0.1 ppb 5 ppb 10 ppb

dioxins

PCBs

POP pesticides

other POPs

A C D

c

Criterion C5 ppm 10 ppm 30 ppm

B A and C

c

Criterion A1 ppm 10 ppm

B no limitations by C and D

c

Criterion A1 ppm 10 ppm

B no limitations by C and D

c

39

BiPRO

Results for Criterion Z: Existing Limit Values"Low POP content limits should not exceed already existing

international/ community agreed limits"

Dioxins: 15 ppb

PCB: 50 ppm


other POPs: 50 ppm

Source:Basel Convention

General technical Guideline on ESM of POP wastes (final);

Technical Guidelines on ESM of PCB/PCTs (final)*

*adopted by COP 7 under the Basel Convention, Geneva 2004

40

BiPRO

Results for criterion Y: unacceptable risk to human health"Low POP content limit have to exclude unacceptable risks"

Levels, for which unacceptable risks can be excluded:

Dioxins: 1 or 15 ppb (depending on restrictions for disposal routes)

PCB: 50 ppm


other POPs: 50 ppm

That means, the already agreed limit values (Basel Convention) enable the exclusion of unacceptable risks to health and the environment for PCBs, POP pesticides and other POPs.

This does not mean, that all risks can be excluded at these levels.

41

BiPRO

Risk assessment

All waste flows of the analysed POP waste flows have been checked on most critical but realistic ways of disposal.

Result:

The most critical disposal/recovery path is use of contaminated material placed directly onto or mixed with soil e.g. as fertilizer, sidewalk pavement.

POP relevant material flows

disposal paths

evaluation on critical exposure risk

Ranking

42

BiPRO

Contaminated material placed directly onto or mixed with soil

Atmospheric deposition

directexposure

Exposure viafood chain

slow diffusion /low transfer rates for hydrophobic, lipophilic substances between soil layers

absorption/ingestion from upper soil

layers

43

BiPRO

Assessment of critical paths

tolerable PCCD/F level in eggs: 3 pg TEQ/g fat*

uncertainty factor: 10 (following risk assessment)

level where unacceptable risks can not be excluded: 30 pg/g fat

assumption:

0.9 ppb contaminated material elevation by 7.5 pg/g fat in eggs

4 ppb contaminated material elevation > 30 pg/g fat in eggs

unacceptable risks can not be excluded by 4 ppb Low POP content limit

* 2001/2375/EC

44

BiPRO

Consequences of assessment

Result: Low POP content limit of 1- 3 ppb for dioxin contamination of waste would be necessary to exclude unacceptable risks

Result fits to several limit values for soil and related material (1 ppb)

CZ Action limit recreational areas 1 ppb

DE Action limit residential areas 1 ppb

HU Action limit less sensitive soil 1 ppb

SE Guidance value less sensitive 0.25 ppb

EU Sewage sludge for agricultural application 0.1 ppb (draft)

45

BiPRO

Risk and exposure assessment for Total PCB

"Use, processing and distribution in commerce of products with less

than 50 ppm PCB concentration will not generally present an

unreasonable risk of harm or injury to health or the environment"

[53 Federal Register No 123, 24206, June 27, 1988]

EPA risk and exposure assessment of PCBs

46

BiPRO

Transmission of Risk Assessment for PCB, POP pesticides and other POPs

Following toxicological attributes of POP pesticides and other POPs, the

POPs carrying medium and the potential to enter the food chain there are

similarities between PCBs, POP pesticides and other POPs. Therefore the

risk assessment results can be assigned. Consequently unacceptable risks

can be excluded for the following Low POP content Limit values:

PCB: 50 ppm


other POPs: 50 ppm

47

BiPRO

Overall result for method 1: Low POP content limit PCB

Concentration of PCB in waste

Criterion X

5 ppm

10 ppm

30 ppm

Criterion C

Criteria B

Criterion A,D

50 ppm

Criterion Z, Y

Proposal for Low POP content limit

option 1 option 2

48

BiPRO

Overall result for method 1: Low POP content limit POP pesticides

Concentration of POP pesticides in waste

Criterion X

1 ppm

10 ppm

Criteria A

Criterion B

50 ppm

Criterion Z, Y

Proposal for Low POP content limitoption 1 option 2

49

BiPRO

Overall result for method 1: Low POP content limit other POPs

Concentration of other POPs in waste

Criterion X

1 ppm

10 ppm

Criterion A

Criterion B

50 ppm

Criterion Z, Y

Proposal for Low POP content limit

option 1 option 2

50

BiPRO

Overall result for method 1: Low POP content limitPCDD/PCDF (Standard procedure)

Concentrationof dioxinsin waste

Criterion X

0.1/0.01ppb

1ppb

5ppb

CriterionA, B

CriteriaY

CriterionC

10ppb

CriterionD

problems to suggest low POP content limit

15ppb

CriterionZ?

51

BiPRO

First approach to solve the contradiction

By means of Article 7, N° 6"The Commission may ... adopt additional measures relating to the implementation of this Article."

Ban to directly place waste material onto or mix with soil if dioxin concentration of 1 ppb is exceeded.

POP relevant waste flows

disposal paths

evaluation on critical exposure risk

RankingNext critical exposure path:use of PCDD/PCDF contaminated material in asphalt for road construction

Low POP content limit is set at 15 ppb for dioxin contamination

52

BiPRO

PCDD/PCDF contaminated material in asphalt for road construction

Atmospheric deposition

direct exposure

Exposure viafood chain

slow diffusion /low transfer rates for hydrophobic, lipophilic substances between soil layers

absorption/ingestion from upper soil

layers

53

BiPRO

Results of selected studies

Use of fly ash as filler in asphalt for road construction[source: Environmental impact Report – National Waste Management Plans (LCA-AVI-vliegas, final report 2002, TAUW)]

leakage rate: max. 1% in 100 years

Low POP content limit of 15 ppb PCDD/PCDF-TEQ will not lead to any unacceptable risks

54

BiPRO

Contradiction of lower and upper limitation criteria


Criterion X

0.1/0.01ppb

5ppb

CriteriaA, B

1ppb

CriterionY

CriterionC

10ppb

CriterionD

15ppb

CriterionZ

55

BiPRO


Criterion X

0.1/0.01ppb

5ppb

10 ppb

CriteriaA, B

CriterionC

CriterionD

15ppb

CriterionZ, Y

Ban to directly place onto or mix with soil if PCDD/PCDF-TEQ of 1 ppb is exceeded (R 10)

Selected solution of contradiction (first approach)

Proposal for low POP content limit

option 1 option 2

56

BiPRO

Contradiction of lower and upper limitation criteria


Criterion X

0.1/0.01ppb

1ppb

CriteriaA, B

CriterionY

5ppb

CriterionC

10ppb

CriterionD

15ppb

CriterionZ

57

BiPRO

Selected solution to solve contradiction (second approach)

suggested low POP content limit

amendment of annex V


0.1/0.01ppb

CriteriaA, B

15ppb

CriterionZ

1ppb

CriteriaY,C,D • Recovery of metal containing

dusts in high temperature thermal processes

• Recovery of ashes by thermoplastic encapsulation (e.g. asphalt filler)

58

BiPRO

Suggested low POP content limits

Dioxins: 10 ppb* or 1 ppb**

PCBs: 30 ppm**


other POPs: 10 ppm

* Ban to directly place onto or mix with soil if dioxin concentration of 1 ppb is exceeded (R 10)

** Annex V amended

*** total PCB in terms of Σ 6 Cong. x 5

Option 1 Option 2

15 ppb* or 1 ppb**

50 ppm

50 ppm

50 ppm

59

BiPRO

Correlation of Low POP content Limit and Coverage of PCDD/F discharge to waste and products

Coverage of Total PCDD/F by Low POP limit 1 ppb

others (< 1%) 2%

Sinter plants - FGT-residues 4%

MSWI - hydroxide sludge 1%

Sinter plants - filter dust 5%

PP biomass - mixed ashes3%

MSWI - APC residues6%

Sec. Alu - filter dust 2%

not covered 77%

60

BiPRO




Sec. Alu - filter dust 1%

not covered97%

Sinter plants - filter dust 1%others (< 1%)

0%

61

BiPRO




not covered98%

others (< 1%) 1%

62

BiPRO

Correlation of Low POP content Limit and Coverage of PCB discharge to waste and products

Coverage of Total PCB by Low POP limit 30 ppm

not covered 18%

others (< 1%) 0%

EEEs - large equipment82%

63

BiPRO

Correlation of Low POP content limit and Coverage of PCB discharge to waste and products

Coverage of Total PCB by Low POP limit 50 ppm

EEEs - large equipment83%

not covered 17%

64

BiPRO

Topic 3

Methods for establishment of limit values and corresponding suggestions

Annex V

65

BiPRO

Assessment Methodologies and their Outcome: Annex V

low POP content limit (Annex IV) maximum limit (Annex V)

NoPOPwaste99/31/EC



on environmental preferability (Annex V)







Proposals for low POP content limits for different POPs (Annex IV)

Proposals for maximum limitsfor different POPs (Annex V)


66

BiPRO

Criteria for Maximum Limits (Annex V): Basic principle

Restriction to Annex V wastes:

EWC 17 bulky residues from construction and demolition

EWC 10, 16, 19 solid residues from thermal processes in power production, waste incineration and metallurgical industry

Potentially Permitted management options up to maximum limit:

D12 Permanent storage (underground, hard rock, landfill site for hazardous waste)

Leaching potential and Long-time leaching behaviour crucial assessment factors

Permitted management options above limit value:

D 9 Physico-chemical treatment

D 10 Incineration on land

R 1 Use as a fuel or other means to generate energy

67

BiPRO

Results from leaching tests for dioxins 6)

without treatment

cement and pozzolanic solidification

thermoplastic solidification

Leaching [%] under varying test conditions

0.001 1)

0.001-0.0001 2)

0.002 3)

2.5 4)

Estimated 100 year leaching rate 5)

1% 0.01% 0.001%(10-6)

Source 1) to 6): LCA AVI fly ash, 2002 (all values are applicable to a 100 year period); other sources yield similar results

What leakage rates can be expected in appropriate landfill sites?

Leachate concentrations to be expected following state of the art:

Proposal:

appropriate annual leachate rate 10-6

Additional protective effect of sealing layers as requested under 1999/31/EC not yet taken into account

68

BiPRO

Tolerable maximum concentrations based on leaching rates following current knowledge

Existing target levels for agricultural soil which exclude unacceptable risks

(based on ADI and precautionary principle):

PCDD/PCDF: 0.005 ppb

PCB: 0.002 ppm

POP pesticides: 0.005 ppm

other POPs: 0.005 ppm

PCDD/PCDF: 0.005 ppb x 1,000,000 = 5,000 ppb

PCB: 0.002 ppm x 1,000,000 = 2,000 ppm

POP pesticides: 0.005 ppm x 1,000,000 = 5,000 ppm

other POPs: 0.005 ppm x 1,000,000 = 5,000 ppm

Worst case estimate based on leaching rate for solidified waste

69

BiPRO

Results of Modified Criterion Y"Landfilling should not be allowed if contamination of waste causes

unacceptable risks to health and environment"

appropriate non-hazardous landfill and hazardous landfill (based on leaching rate)

Dioxins: 5,000 ppb

PCB: 2,000 ppm

POP pesticides: 5,000 ppm

other POPs: 5,000 ppm

appropriate storage in salt mines, safe deep hard rock formation

Dioxins:

PCB:

POP pesticides:

other POPs:

no restrictions

70

BiPRO

Topic 4

Methods to determine environmentally preferable options (compared with the destruction or irreversible transformation

of the POP content in waste)

Requirements for the demonstration of preferability

Format for the submission of the information in accordance with Article 7 paragraph 4 (b) (iii)

and paragraph 6

71

BiPRO

Method to determine an environmentally preferable solution

1. Different types of environmental contamination need to be compared relative examination

2. Alternatives are measured against a benchmark (incineration)

3. The assessment covers three dimensions:a. Emissions of POPsb. Emissions of other pollutants, resources and energy consumptionc. Relevant risks to human health and the environment

4. In each dimension, -2/-1/0/1/2 credits can be allocated

Principles

72

BiPRO


5. Dimension can be weighted differently by the competent authority, depending on local contamination settings, within a pre-set range

6. Environmental preferability is given if the credits obtained by an alternative option are above 0.

7. The sum of weighting factor used is 3, with a minimum value of 0.5, and a maximum factor of 2.

8. Credits are awarded following the scheme below:Environmental performance equivalent to benchmark 0

inferior to benchmark -1

remarkably inferior to benchmark: -2

stronger than benchmark 1

remarkably stronger than benchmark 2

Principles (ct‘d)

73

BiPRO


Performance \Criteria

Bench-mark

Option X Relation Credits Weight Total Performance

POP discharge• air• water• waste

Other emissions(e.g. heavy metals, GHG, ozone precursors, acidifying substances, other)

Risks, uncertainties

Total 3

74

BiPRO

Exemplary case 1: Waste, intended disposal route, and benchmark

Waste code and waste designation

19 01 13*Fly ash containing dangerous substances

Origin Municipal solid waste incineration

Contamination 15 ppb PCDD/PCDF-TEQ

Amount 100 t, total PCDD/PCDF-TEQ content 1.5 g

Intended disposal route (“Option X”)

Disposal in hazardous waste landfillHazardous waste landfill according to BAT standardsSolidification with cement;addition of binding reagent (~250 kg/t) and water (~100 l/t)

Benchmark Thermal destruction

Period of disposal February and March 2005

Transport Intended option:100 km road transport to hazardous waste landfillBenchmark: 200 km to thermal destruction facility

Handling Safe handling and compliance with occupational exposure limits guaranteed

75

BiPRO

Exemplary case 1: POP emissions

POP discharge benchmark option X

air 1.5 µg 0

leachate 0 < 1.5 µg / year

waste < 4000 µg 0

Credits for criterion : +1

Justification:

Option X is considered environmentally preferable because emission to air is given higher priority

with respect to environmental impact than leachate.

76

BiPRO

Exemplary case 1: Other emissions

Other emissions benchmark option X

CO2 emission for destruction/solidification

23 t CO2 15.6 t CO2

CO2 emission for transport 0.4 t CO2 0.2 t CO2

Credits for criterion : +1

Justification:Option X is considered environmentally preferable due to the following reasons: Heavy metals released during incineration are adsorbed to a large extent to flue gas treatment residues. Thus, no important difference exists in potential emissions from the two alternative disposal pathways. Therefore, with respect to emissions other than POPs, greenhouse gas emissions constitute the most important argument. The intended treatment causes less CO2 emissions compared to the benchmark technology.

Also lower emission from transport due to lower distance are in favour to the intended option.

77

BiPRO

Exemplary case 1: Risks, uncertainties

Risks, uncertainties benchmark option X

legal compliance o.k. o.k.

long term safety assured uncertain

Credits for criterion : –1

Justification: Even if several estimations indicate that the disposal of solidified waste may be safe for centuries, uncertainty with respect to long-time safety of landfilling is the crucial factor in view of comparable performance.

78

BiPRO

Exemplary case 1: Result

Performance\Criteria Credits Weight Total Performance

POP emissions +1 1 +1

Other emissions +1 1 +1

Risks, uncertainties –1 1 –1

Total 3 +1

The intended waste treatment option is environmentally preferable

79

BiPRO

Reporting Format - I

Notification of treatment and disposal of POP waste authorized as environmentally preferable to irreversible destruction

Commission (Competent body with address):

To be forwarded to (Contact Member States):

Notifying authority (Name, address):Contact person:Tel.:Fax:e-mail

Date:

Waste generator (Name, address)Contact person:Tel.:Fax:e-mail

Waste disposer (Name, address) Contact person:Tel.:Fax:e-mail

Site of generation and process: Actual site of disposal:

80

BiPRO

Reporting Format – II

Notification of treatment and disposal of POP waste authorized as environmentally preferable to irreversible destruction

General description of waste:Waste code:Origin:Contamination:Amount:

Intended disposal route:Intended date or period of disposal

Measurement information:Measurement data:Measurement methods

Technology and precautionary measures applied, incl. pre-treatment and/or solidification or stabilisation measures:Tests on leakage rate available:Measurement data:Measurement methods:

Transport to disposal site (distance, means): Considered disposal benchmark:Specifications:

Additional specification regarding waste handling:

81

BiPRO

Draft reporting format - Performance matrix for justification of alternative waste management operations

Performance related to benchmark

credits weight total performance

evidence and justification

POP emissions

air

leachate

waste

Other emissions, energy and resource consumption

CO2 emission for destruction/solidification

CO2 emission for transport

Other emissions (Greenhouse gases, heavy metals, acidifying gases, etc.)

Risks, uncertainties

legal compliance

long term safety

82

BiPRO

Assessment Methodologies and their Outcome: Overview

low POP content limit maximum limit

NoPOPwaste99/31/EC



on environmental preferability (annex V)







Proposals for low POP content limits for different POPs

Proposals for maximum limitsfor different POPs


83

BiPRO

Specification of the required solidification and stabilisation and other restrictions

solidification / stabilisation

POP waste with concentration above Low POP content limit and

below maximum limit

• Methods for solidification / stabilisation

• Relevant pre-treatment methods

• leachate concentrations to be expected

• Evaluation (environmental drawbacks and risks)

• Requirements and restrictions(Are limit values appropriate? If so, which?Is the origin of the waste relevant?Which pre-treatments are necessary?)

environ-mentally prefer-

able compared to irreversible de-

struction?

landfill possible

irreversible destruction

yes

no

84

BiPRO

Results from leaching tests for dioxins 6)

without treatment

cement and pozzolanic solidification

thermoplastic solidification

Leaching [%] under varying test conditions

0.001 1)

0.001-0.0001 2)

0.002 3)

2.5 4)

Estimated 100 year leaching rate 5)

1% 0.01% 0.001%

Source 1) to 6): LCA AVI fly ash, 2002 (all values are applicable to a 100 year period)

What are appropriate leakage rates?

Leachate concentrations to be expected following state of the art:

Proposal:

appropriate annual leachate rate 10-6

85

BiPRO

When is a solidification required?

low leakage rate

solidification not required because leakage rate is below minimum requirements

leakage rate not relevant

irreversible destruction required;solidification makes no sense

inappropriate leakage rate

solidification required; leakage rate has to be ensured by appropriate solidification because minimum requirements are not fulfilled by the properties of the waste itself

concentration of POP in wasteannual leakage rate

below 10-6/year above 10-6/yearbelow maximum

limit valuesabove maximum limit values

86

BiPRO

Results of Modified Criterion Y"Landfilling should not be allowed if contamination of waste causes

unacceptable risks to health and environment"

appropriate non-hazardous landfill and hazardous landfill

Dioxins: 5,000 ppb

PCB: 2,000 ppm

POP pesticides: 5,000 ppm

other POPs: 5,000 ppm

appropriate storage in salt mines, safe deep hard rock formation

Dioxins:

PCB:

POP pesticides:

other POPs:

no restrictions

87

BiPRO

measurement techniques

88

BiPRO

Measurement of POPs in waste matrices: Problem of Matrix

• “WASTE” = liquids solids

“soil like” “plastics”

homogeneous complex mixture

<< interferences >> interferences

no fixed matrix “waste” from an analytical point of view

no fixed method for matrix “waste” from an analytical point of view

no fixed analytical sensitivity as no fixed matrix

89

BiPRO

Analysis of POPs in waste matrices

1. Sampling/Transport

2. Pretreatment: grinding, centrifugation, filtration

3. Extraction: liquid / liquid shaking / ultrasonic

soxhlet and ASE

4. Clean-up: gel permeation multi-layer silica carbon alumina

5. Measurement: GC: - ECD- MS / HRMS

Steps for analysis of POPs: (examples for available techniques)

90

BiPRO

POPs measurement standards for waste

Recommendation for standard requirements

“Modular system including the different analytical techniques used and recommendation which technique can be used for which matrix”

“Final decision on the methods used has to be taken by the analyst depending on individual matrix”

“Minimum performance criteria have to be accomplished” (QA/QC)

Standards to be developed or under development by CEN/TC 292

(sampling, analysis, leaching)

Harmonised European standards not yet available

91

BiPRO

Total package to support implementation

groups of waste categories + testing proposal

methodology for environmental preferability

case studies

reporting format

requirements for solidification

measurement techniques

Documents

Objectives of the project