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

BiPRO

1

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 BiPRO

2

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 BiPRO

3

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 BiPRO

4

Topic 2 European mass flow for POPs with a specific focus on waste PCDD/PCDF PCB POP pesticides other POPs BiPRO

5

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/year

.

BiPRO

6

Mass flow results for dioxins: An overview on sources From activities: ~ 17.5 kg/y Recycling: 3.4 kg/y Anthropogenic discharge Sources 20,900 g/year MSWI: ~ 1,999 g/y HWI: 78 g/y Hospital WI: 143 g/y PP coal: 1,651 g/y PP biomass: 606 g/y EDC production: 13 g/y Fe sintering: 1,400 g/y EAF: 1,401 g/y Fe smelting: 143 g/y Secondary Cu: 226 g/y Secondary Al: 500 g/y Secondary Zn: 181 g/y Sewage sludge: 297 g/y Compost: 160 g/y Road traffic: 56 g/y Domestic burn: 3,656g/y MSW: 8,404 g/y 336 g/y BiPRO

7

Mass flow results for dioxins: An overview on endpoints From activities: ~ 17.5 kg/year Recycling / recovery 3,400 g/year Anthropogenic discharge Emissions: 4.2 kg/year Waste 16,350 g/year Waste for disposal: 13.3 kg/y Hazard. waste incineration ~200 g/year Landfill for hazard. waste* 2,197 g/year Non haz. waste incineration 1,741 g/year Landfill for inert waste 273 g/year Landfill for non haz. waste 7,125 g/year Temporary storage 92 g/year Landfill for hazard. or non haz. waste** 1,780 g/year BiPRO

8

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

9

Dioxin waste flows: A detailed view on selected waste streams Example: EAF Metals, scrap m=69.5 Mt c= negligible 0 10 Slag m=10 Mt c=0.001 ng TEQ/g (0.0002-0.003) Sold, used and recycled m= 5.6 Mt c= 0.11 ng TEQ/g 616 1224 Filter dust m= 1.1 Mt c= 1.1 ng TEQ/g (0.1 - 10) Hazardous or non hazardous landfill m= 5 Mt c= 0.11 ng TEQ/g 557 in g PCDD/F TEQ/y 0 Refractory bricks m=

x

c= 0 ng TEQ/g Temporary storage m= 0.5 Mt c= 0.11 ng TEQ/g 61 BiPRO Landfill m=

x

c=0 ng TEQ/g 0

10

Correlation of Low POP content Limit and Waste Quantities: Dioxins quantity POP waste [kt] 2,800 450 300 100 1 ppb 5 ppb limit value 10 ppb 15 ppb BiPRO

11

Mass Flow results for PCBs: The overall flow of PCBs Anthropogenic discharge From activities: ~6,250 t/y Remaining stock > 83,000 t Recycling: < 15 t/y Destruction 5,000 t/y Emissions: 600 t/y Waste for disposal: 5,600 t/y

Environment EU 25 > 200,000 t**

Landfill: Inert waste: 300 t/y Non-haz. waste: ~ 11 t/y Haz. Waste including underground: 304 t/y * Landfill > 200,000 t** Inert waste Non-haz. waste Haz. waste incl. underground Based on average concentrations waste flows contain a total PCB load of

5,600 tons/year

.

BiPRO

12

Mass Flow Details on PCB: An overview on sources and endpoints WEEE: 5,210 t/year Demolition: <1000 t/year waste oil: 14.9 t/year Shredder: 18 t/year sewage sludge: 4.8 t/year compost: 4.5 t/year Sources 6,252 t/year Emission 626 t/year Product 4.5 t/year 4.5 t/year Waste 5,626 t/year landfilling inert 300 t/year landfilling non-hazardous ~ 11.75 t/year landfilling hazardous/ underground storage 303.5 t/year Incineration 4.35 t/year Energy recovery 3.15 t/year Substance recovery 10 t/year Incineration hazardous 4,991 t/year BiPRO

13

quantity POP waste [kt] Correlation of Low POP content Limit Waste Quantities : PCB 6,700 construction and demolition waste is not included in the figure because PCB contamination  1 ppm is already regulated excavated soil is not considered due to missing data 2,900 800 470 100 1 ppm 5 ppm 10 ppm 20 ppm 50 ppm BiPRO

14

Mass Flow results for POP pesticides: The overall flow of POP pesticides 3,000 t/y over Anthropogenic discharge use and export From activities: ~ 3,000 t/y Remaining stock > 5,370 t Emissions: 5 t/y Destruction 532 t/y Waste for disposal: 532 t/y (via POP pesticides) 5 t/y (via contaminated material)

Environment EU 25 > 100,000 t*

Landfill: 5 t/y (via contaminated material) *including exports, not considering lifetime effects Landfill: < 1,000 t rough estimation for material, contaminated with POP pesticides Landfill * Based on average concentrations waste flows contain a total POP load of

537 tons/year

.

BiPRO

15

Mass Flow results for other POPs: The overall flow of other POPs Production and import: > 1,000 t/y Anthropogenic discharge Emissions: < 100 t/y Remaining stock 10,500 t > 900 t/y Elimination due to use as intermediate Waste for disposal: 3,500 t/y (HxBB, HCH)

Environment EU 25 HCH > 500,000 t

Destruction Landfill: 2,800 t/y (part is planned to be recycled) 700 t/y Landfill: < 200,000 t Landfill * Based on average concentrations waste flows contain a total POP load of

3,500 tons/year

.

BiPRO

16

Next material flow BiPRO

17

Topic 3 Methods for establishment of limit values and corresponding suggestions Annex IV BiPRO

18

Assessment Methodologies and their Outcome: Overview

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

xxxxxxx

No POP waste

99/31/EC

////////////////////////////////////////////////

POP waste

disposal operation may depend on environmental preferability (annex V)

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Concentration of POP in waste

POP waste

POP content to be irreversibly destroyed Method 1 for assessment of low POP content limit Method 2 for decision on environmental preferability Method 1 for assessment of maximum limit Proposals for low POP content limits for different POPs (Annex IV) Proposals for maximum limits for different POPs (Annex V) exemplary application for important cases BiPRO

19

Method 1 related to Annex IV: Basic Principle Lower limitation criteria for determining limit values (Limit value may not be below ) Upper limitation criteria for determining limit values (Limit value has to be below) Concentration of POP in waste

Range for suggestion of limit value

BiPRO

20

Method 1: Lower Limitation Criteria for Low POP content Limit A Analytical potential B Environmental background contamination C Disposal capacities D Economic feasibility BiPRO

21

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 BiPRO

22

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 BiPRO

23

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 BiPRO

24

Results for Criterion A: Analytical potential Dioxins: PCBs: POP pesticides: other POPs: 0.1 ppb for PCDD/PCDF-TEQ 1 ppm individual congener 30 ppm total PCB (based on Σ 6 cong. x 5) 1 ppm 1 ppm BiPRO

25

Criterion A: Analytical Potential for Dioxin Measurements

Cost (relative)

Standard 2.0

Limitation Crit. A 1.5

1.0

0.01 ppb 0.1 ppb Detection method: HRGC/HRMS 1.0 ppb

Cost for dioxin measurement in most unfavourable matrix

10 ppb

Dioxin concentration detected (TEQ)

BiPRO

26

Results for Criterion B: Environmental POP levels (soil) dioxin PCBs POP pesticides other POPs background concentration uncertainty factor criterion B 0.001 ppb 1 ppm 0.1 ppm 10 10 100 0.01 ppb 10 ppm 10 ppm 0.1 ppm 100 10 ppm BiPRO

27

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

FI FR GR HU IE AT BE CY CZ DE DK EE ES Country PCCD/F

[pg TEQ/g] 10 -3 ppb 0.93

2.84

0.03

1.44

1.56

0.63

0.29

0.26

0.23

0.94

0.24

0.56

0.21

PCB

[ng/g] 10 -3 ppm 23.31

40.15

0.25

20.13

40.02

13.09

8.84

7.04

12.24

17.75

2.38

12.80

8.72

HCB

[ng/g] 10 -3 ppm 0.37

0.23

0.02

0.24

0.27

0.20

0.33

0.15

0.44

0.22

0.06

0.36

0.27

IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT SE SI SK UK Country PCCD/F

[pg TEQ/g] 10 -3 ppb 0.67

0.36

2.88

0.29

0.03

1.81

0.75

0.21

0.31

0.75

0.81

0.70

PCB

[ng/g] 10 -3 ppm 19.26

9.61

25.99

8.84

0.13

46.96

13.72

6.63

11.52

17.68

13.15

33.22

HCB

[ng/g] 10 -3 ppm 0.20

0.27

0.26

0.31

0.02

0.25

0.32

0.19

0.29

0.33

0.33

0.38

BiPRO

28

Results for Criterion C: Disposal Capacities limit value Dioxins: PCB: HCB, HCH, HxBB POP pesticides  5 ppb  5 ppm ≥ 10 ppm ≥ 10 ppm additional amounts of waste  0.4 Mio. t  1.5 Mio. t < 1 Mio. t < 1 Mio. t capacities available ok serious capacity problems expected by 1 ppb ok ok ok by 1 ppm no problems expected* no problems expected* * based on available data BiPRO

29

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

Continue with higher limit value

NO Comparison to available capacities (Transport, disposal, administration)

Realistic?

YES

Use as lower limitation criterion

Assessment of possibility and time frame to build up sufficient capacities BiPRO

30

Correlation of Low POP content Limit and Waste Quantities: Dioxins quantity POP waste [kt] 2,800 450 300 100 1 ppb 5 ppb limit value 10 ppb 15 ppb BiPRO

31

Results for Criterion D: Economic Feasibility

Feasible limit values:

Dioxins (TEQ): PCB: 10 ppb 30 ppm* POP pesticides: other POPs: 1 ppm 1 ppm * total PCB in terms of Σ 6 Cong. x 5 BiPRO

32

Criterion D: Economic feasibility “Low POP content Limits have to be in accordance with economic feasibility” Material flows Scenario for low limit value

Continue with higher limit value

NO Consequences for POP waste quantities Monetary impacts compared to status quo

Feasible?

Feasibility against economic parameters YES

Use as lower limitation criterion

BiPRO

33

Correlation of Low POP content Limit and Waste Quantities: Dioxins

Waste Amounts Covered by Different Threshold Limits

3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 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 1ppb 5ppb 10ppb

Threshold Limit

15ppb BiPRO

34

Examples for important economic impacts due to dioxin 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 BiPRO

35

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

Waste Amounts Covered by Different Threshold Limits

7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 1 ppm 5 ppm 10 ppm 20 ppm

Threshold Limit

30 ppm 50 ppm Shredder - waste cable Shredder - white goods and vehicles Waste oils - lower contaminated Waste oils - higher contaminated EEEs - household equipment EEEs - large equipment BiPRO

36

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 BiPRO

37

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

dioxins

c

Criterion

0.01 ppb

B

0.1 ppb

A

5 ppb

C

10 ppb

D

PCBs

c

Criterion

5 ppm 10 ppm

C B

30 ppm

A and C Criterion

1 ppm

A Criterion

1 ppm

A

POP pesticides

c 10 ppm

B no limitations by C and D

other POPs

c 10 ppm

B no limitations by C and D

BiPRO

38

Results for Criterion Z: Existing Limit Values "Low POP content limits should not exceed already existing international/ community agreed limits" Dioxins: PCB: 15 ppb 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 BiPRO

39

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

BiPRO

40

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

POP relevant material flows disposal paths evaluation on critical exposure risk Ranking

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.

BiPRO

41

Contaminated material placed directly onto or mixed with soil Exposure via food chain Atmospheric deposition direct exposure absorption/ingestion from upper soil layers slow diffusion /low transfer rates for hydrophobic, lipophilic substances between soil layers BiPRO

42

Assessment of critical paths tolerable PCCD/F level in eggs: uncertainty factor: 3 pg TEQ/g fat* 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

BiPRO * 2001/2375/EC

43

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 SE EU Guidance value less sensitive Sewage sludge for agricultural application 1 ppb 0.25 ppb 0.1 ppb (draft) BiPRO

44

Risk and exposure assessment for Total PCB EPA risk and exposure assessment of PCBs "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] BiPRO

45

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: POP pesticides: other POPs: 50 ppm 50 ppm 50 ppm BiPRO

46

Overall result for method 1: Low POP content limit PCB

Criterion X

Concentration of PCB in waste

5 ppm 10 ppm 30 ppm

Criterion C Criteria B Criterion A,D

50 ppm

Criterion Z, Y

option 1 option 2

Proposal for Low POP content limit

BiPRO

47

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

Criterion X

Concentration of POP pesticides in waste 1 ppm 10 ppm

Criteria A Criterion B

50 ppm

Criterion Z, Y

option 1 option 2

Proposal for Low POP content limit

BiPRO

48

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

Criterion X

Concentration of other POPs in waste

1 ppm

Criterion A

10 ppm

Criterion B

50 ppm

Criterion Z, Y

option 1 option 2

Proposal for Low POP content limit

BiPRO

49

Criterion X

Overall result for method 1: Low POP content limit PCDD/PCDF (Standard procedure) Concentration of dioxins in waste 0.1/0.01

ppb 1 ppb 5 ppb

Criterion A, B Criteria Y Criterion C

?

10 ppb

Criterion D

15 ppb

Criterion Z

problems to suggest low POP content limit BiPRO

50

First approach to solve the contradiction Low POP content limit is set at 15 ppb for dioxin contamination Ban to directly place waste material onto or mix with soil if dioxin concentration of 1 ppb is exceeded.

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

POP relevant waste flows disposal paths evaluation on critical exposure risk Ranking

Next critical exposure path:

use of PCDD/PCDF contaminated material in asphalt for road construction BiPRO

51

PCDD/PCDF contaminated material in asphalt for road construction Exposure via food chain Atmospheric deposition direct exposure absorption/ingestion from upper soil layers slow diffusion /low transfer rates for hydrophobic, lipophilic substances between soil layers BiPRO

52

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

BiPRO

53

Criterion X

Contradiction of lower and upper limitation criteria Concentration of dioxins in waste 0.1/0.01

ppb 1 ppb 5 ppb

Criteria A, B Criterion Y Criterion C

10 ppb

Criterion D

15 ppb

Criterion Z

BiPRO

54

Selected solution of contradiction (first approach) 0.1/0.01

ppb

Criteria A, B

5 ppb

Criterion C

10 ppb

Criterion D Criterion X

15 ppb

Criterion Z, Y

Concentration of dioxins in waste

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

option 1 option 2

Proposal for low POP content limit

BiPRO

55

Criterion X

Contradiction of lower and upper limitation criteria Concentration of dioxins in waste 0.1/0.01

ppb 1 ppb 5 ppb

Criteria A, B Criterion Y Criterion C

10 ppb

Criterion D

15 ppb

Criterion Z

BiPRO

56

Selected solution to solve contradiction (second approach) 0.1/0.01

ppb

Criteria A, B

1 ppb

Criteria Y,C,D

suggested low POP content limit 15 ppb

Criterion Z

Concentration of dioxins in waste

amendment of annex V

• Recovery of metal containing dusts in high temperature thermal processes • Recovery of ashes by thermoplastic encapsulation (e.g. asphalt filler) BiPRO

57

Suggested low POP content limits Dioxins: PCBs: POP pesticides: other POPs: Option 1 10 ppb* or 1 ppb** 30 ppm** 10 ppm 10 ppm Option 2 15 ppb* or 1 ppb** 50 ppm 50 ppm 50 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 BiPRO

58

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

not covered 77% MSWI - APC residues 6% MSWI - hydroxide sludge others (< 1%) 2% Sec. Alu - filter dust 2% Sinter plants - FGT-residues 4% Sinter plants - filter dust 1% PP biomass - mixed ashes 3% 5% BiPRO

59

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

not covered 97% others (< 1%) 0% Sec. Alu - filter dust 1% MSWI - APC residues 1% Sinter plants - filter dust 1% BiPRO

60

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

not covered 98% others (< 1%) 1% MSWI - APC residues 1% BiPRO

61

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

EEEs - large equipment 82% not covered 18% others (< 1%) 0% BiPRO

62

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 equipment 83% not covered 17% BiPRO

63

Topic 3 Methods for establishment of limit values and corresponding suggestions Annex V BiPRO

64

Assessment Methodologies and their Outcome: Annex V

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

xxxxxxx

No POP waste

99/31/EC

////////////////////////////////////////////////

POP waste

disposal operation may depend on environmental preferability (Annex V)

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Concentration of POP in waste

POP waste

POP content to be irreversibly destroyed Method 1 for assessment of low POP content limit Method 2 for decision on environmental preferability Method 1 for assessment of maximum limit Proposals for low Proposals for POP content limits maximum limits for different POPs (Annex IV) for different POPs (Annex V) exemplary application for important cases BiPRO

65

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)

Permitted management options above limit value:

D 9 D 10 R 1 Physico-chemical treatment Incineration on land Use as a fuel or other means to generate energy Leaching potential and Long-time leaching behaviour crucial assessment factors BiPRO

66

What leakage rates can be expected in appropriate landfill sites?

Leachate concentrations to be expected following state of the art:

Results from leaching tests for dioxins 6) without treatment cement and pozzolanic solidification thermoplastic solidification Leaching [%] under varying test conditions Estimated 100 year leaching rate

5)

0.001 1) 0.001-0.0001 2) 0.002 3) 2.5 4) 1% 0.01% 0.001% (

10 -6 ) Proposal: appropriate annual leachate rate 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 Additional protective effect of sealing layers as requested under 1999/31/EC not yet taken into account BiPRO

67

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: PCB: 0.005 ppb 0.002 ppm POP pesticides: other POPs: 0.005 ppm 0.005 ppm

Worst case estimate based on leaching rate for solidified waste

PCDD/PCDF: PCB: 0.005 ppb x 1,000,000 = 5,000 ppb 0.002 ppm x 1,000,000 = 2,000 ppm POP pesticides: other POPs: 0.005 ppm x 1,000,000 = 5,000 ppm 0.005 ppm x 1,000,000 = 5,000 ppm BiPRO

68

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: POP pesticides: other POPs: 2,000 ppm 5,000 ppm 5,000 ppm

appropriate storage in salt mines, safe deep hard rock formation

Dioxins: PCB: POP pesticides: other POPs: no restrictions BiPRO

69

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 BiPRO

70

Method to determine an environmentally preferable solution

Principles

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 POPs b.

c.

Emissions of other pollutants, resources and energy consumption Relevant risks to human health and the environment 4.

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

71

Method to determine an environmentally preferable solution

Principles (ct‘d)

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 inferior to benchmark remarkably inferior to benchmark: 0 -1 -2 stronger than benchmark 1 remarkably stronger than benchmark 2 BiPRO

72

Method to determine an environmentally preferable solution Performance \ Criteria • • •  POP discharge air water waste  Other emissions (e.g. heavy metals, GHG, ozone precursors, acidifying substances, other)  Risks, uncertainties Bench mark Option X Relation Credits Weight Total Performance Total 3 BiPRO

73

Exemplary case 1: Waste, intended disposal route, and benchmark Waste code and waste designation Origin Contamination Amount Intended disposal route (“Option X”) Benchmark Period of disposal Transport Handling 19 01 13* Fly ash containing dangerous substances Municipal solid waste incineration 15 ppb PCDD/PCDF-TEQ 100 t, total PCDD/PCDF-TEQ content 1.5 g Disposal in hazardous waste landfill Hazardous waste landfill according to BAT standards Solidification with cement; addition of binding reagent (~250 kg/t) and water (~100 l/t) Thermal destruction February and March 2005 Intended option:100 km road transport to hazardous waste landfill Benchmark: 200 km to thermal destruction facility Safe handling and compliance with occupational exposure limits guaranteed BiPRO

74

Exemplary case 1: POP emissions air leachate  POP discharge waste Credits for criterion  : benchmark 1.5 µg 0 < 4000 µg option X 0 < 1.5 µg / year 0 +1

Justification:

Option X is considered environmentally preferable because emission to air is given higher priority with respect to environmental impact than leachate. BiPRO

75

Exemplary case 1: Other emissions  Other emissions CO 2 emission for destruction/solidification benchmark 23 t CO 2 option X 15.6 t CO 2 CO 2 emission for transport

Credits for criterion



: +1

0.4 t CO 2 0.2 t CO 2

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 CO 2 emissions compared to the benchmark technology. Also lower emission from transport due to lower distance are in favour to the intended option.

BiPRO

76

Exemplary case 1: Risks, uncertainties  Risks, uncertainties benchmark option X legal compliance long term safety Credits for criterion  :

–

1 o.k.

assured o.k.

uncertain

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.

BiPRO

77

Exemplary case 1: Result Performance\Criteria  POP emissions  Other emissions  Risks, uncertainties Total Credits +1 +1 –1 Weight 1 1 1 3 Total Performance +1 +1 –1

+1 The intended waste treatment option is environmentally preferable

BiPRO

78

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): Date: Notifying authority (Name, address): Contact person: Tel.: Fax: e-mail Waste generator (Name, address) Contact person: Tel.: Fax: e-mail Site of generation and process: Waste disposer (Name, address) Contact person: Tel.: Fax: e-mail Actual site of disposal: BiPRO

79

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: Measurement information: Measurement data: Measurement methods Transport to disposal site (distance, means): Intended disposal route: Intended date or period of disposal Technology and precautionary measures applied, incl. pre-treatment and/or solidification or stabilisation measures: Tests on leakage rate available: Measurement data: Measurement methods: Considered disposal benchmark: Specifications: Additional specification regarding waste handling: BiPRO

80

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

credits Performance related to benchmark 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 BiPRO

81

Assessment Methodologies and their Outcome: Overview

low POP content limit maximum limit

xxxxxxx

No POP waste

99/31/EC

////////////////////////////////////////////////

POP waste

disposal operation may depend on environmental preferability (annex V)

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Concentration of POP in waste

POP waste

POP content to be irreversibly destroyed Method 1 for assessment of low POP content limit Method 2 for decision on environmental preferability Method 1 for assessment of maximum limit Proposals for low POP content limits for different POPs Proposals for maximum limits for different POPs exemplary application for important cases BiPRO

82

Specification of the required solidification and stabilisation and other restrictions POP waste with concentration above Low POP content limit and below maximum limit solidification / stabilisation environ mentally prefer able compared to irreversible de struction?

yes no • 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?) landfill possible irreversible destruction BiPRO

83

What are appropriate leakage rates?

Leachate concentrations to be expected following state of the art:

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) 1% Estimated 100 year leaching rate

5)

0.01% 0.001%

Source 1) to 6): LCA AVI fly ash, 2002 (all values are applicable to a 100 year period) Proposal: appropriate annual leachate rate 10 -6 BiPRO

84

When is a solidification required?

below 10

annual leakage rate

-6 /year above 10 -6 /year

concentration of POP in waste

below maximum limit values above maximum limit values low leakage rate  solidification not required because leakage rate is below minimum requirements 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 leakage rate not relevant  irreversible destruction required; solidification makes no sense BiPRO

85

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: POP pesticides: other POPs: 2,000 ppm 5,000 ppm 5,000 ppm appropriate storage in salt mines, safe deep hard rock formation Dioxins: PCB: POP pesticides: other POPs: no restrictions BiPRO

86

measurement techniques BiPRO

87

Measurement of POPs in waste matrices: Problem of Matrix • “WASTE” = liquids “soil like”   homogeneous  << interferences  solids “plastics” complex mixture >> 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 BiPRO

88

Analysis of POPs in waste matrices Steps for analysis of POPs: (examples for available techniques) 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Sampling/Transport Pretreatment: grinding, centrifugation, filtration Extraction: Clean-up: Measurement: liquid / liquid shaking / ultrasonic soxhlet and ASE gel permeation multi-layer silica carbon alumina GC: - ECD - MS / HRMS BiPRO

89

POPs measurement standards for waste Harmonised European standards not yet available 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) BiPRO

90

Total package to support implementation groups of waste categories + testing proposal methodology for environmental preferability case studies reporting format requirements for solidification measurement techniques BiPRO

91