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
Anthropogenic discharge
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**
*
Anthropogenic discharge
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 *
Anthropogenic discharge
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 *
Anthropogenic discharge
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)
Concentrationof POPin waste
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
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
32
BiPRO
Results for Criterion D: Economic Feasibility
Feasible limit values:
Dioxins (TEQ): 10 ppb
PCB: 30 ppm*
POP pesticides: 1 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
Correlation of Low POP content Limit and Waste Quantities: Dioxins
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
POP pesticides: 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
POP pesticides: 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
POP pesticides: 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
Concentrationof dioxinsin waste
Criterion X
0.1/0.01ppb
5ppb
CriteriaA, B
1ppb
CriterionY
CriterionC
10ppb
CriterionD
15ppb
CriterionZ
55
BiPRO
Concentrationof dioxinsin waste
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
Concentrationof dioxinsin waste
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
Concentrationof dioxinsin waste
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**
POP pesticides: 10 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
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 10 ppb
MSWI - APC residues1%
Sec. Alu - filter dust 1%
not covered97%
Sinter plants - filter dust 1%others (< 1%)
0%
61
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 15 ppb
MSWI - APC residues1%
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
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
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
Method to determine an environmentally preferable solution
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
Method to determine an environmentally preferable solution
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
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
Proposals for maximum limitsfor different POPs
Concentrationof POPin waste
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