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
waste
volume
wastes to be managed
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
Anthropogenic
discharge
Recycling:
3.4 kg/y
Sources
20,900 g/year
MSWI: ~ 1,999 g/y
Sewage sludge: 297 g/y
Fe sintering: 1,400 g/y
HWI: 78 g/y
Compost: 160 g/y
EAF: 1,401 g/y
Hospital WI: 143 g/y
PP coal: 1,651 g/y
PP biomass: 606 g/y
EDC production: 13 g/y
Road traffic: 56 g/y
Fe smelting: 143 g/y
Domestic burn: 3,656g/y
Secondary Cu: 226 g/y
MSW: 8,404 g/y
Secondary Al: 500 g/y
336 g/y
Secondary Zn: 181 g/y
BiPRO
7
Mass flow results for dioxins: An overview on endpoints
From activities:
~ 17.5 kg/year
Anthropogenic
discharge
Recycling /
recovery
3,400 g/year
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
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
Metals, scrap
m=69.5 Mt
c= negligible
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
Refractory bricks
m= x
c= 0 ng TEQ/g
0
Temporary storage
m= 0.5 Mt
c= 0.11 ng TEQ/g
Landfill
m= x
c=0 ng
TEQ/g
0
61
BiPRO
10
Correlation of Low POP content Limit and Waste Quantities: Dioxins
quantity POP
waste
[kt]
2,800
450
300
100
1 ppb
5 ppb
10 ppb
limit
value
15 ppb
BiPRO
11
Mass Flow results for PCBs: The overall flow of PCBs
Anthropogenic discharge
Emissions: 600 t/y
From activities: Remaining stock
~6,250 t/y
> 83,000 t
Recycling:
< 15 t/y
Waste for disposal:
5,600 t/y
> 200,000 t**
Landfill:
Destruction
5,000 t/y
Environment EU 25
Inert waste: 300 t/y
Non-haz. waste: ~ 11 t/y
Haz. Waste including underground: 304 t/y
Inert waste
Non-haz. waste
> 200,000 t** Haz. waste incl. underground
Landfill
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
waste oil: 14.9 t/year
sewage sludge: 4.8 t/year
Demolition: <1000 t/year
Shredder: 18 t/year
compost: 4.5 t/year
Sources
6,252 t/year
Emission
626 t/year
landfilling
inert
300 t/year
Product
4.5 t/year
landfilling
non-hazardous
~ 11.75 t/year
Energy recovery
3.15 t/year
landfilling hazardous/
underground storage
303.5 t/year
Waste
5,626 t/year
4.5 t/year
Incineration
4.35 t/year
Incineration
hazardous
4,991 t/year
Substance recovery
10 t/year
BiPRO
13
Correlation of Low POP content Limit Waste Quantities :
PCB
quantity POP
waste [kt]
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 dischargeuse and export
From activities:
~ 3,000 t/y
Remaining stock
> 5,370 t
Emissions: 5 t/y
Waste for disposal:
Environment EU 25
> 100,000 t*
532 t/y (via POP pesticides)
5 t/y (via contaminated material)
*including exports, not
considering lifetime
effects
Landfill:
Destruction
5 t/y (via contaminated material)
532 t/y
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
Anthropogenic discharge
Production
and import:
> 1,000 t/y
Emissions: < 100 t/y
Remaining stock
10,500 t
> 900 t/y
Elimination due to
use as intermediate
Environment EU 25
Waste for disposal:
3,500 t/y (HxBB, HCH)
Destruction
HCH > 500,000 t
Landfill:
2,800 t/y (part is planned to be recycled)
700 t/y
Landfill:
Landfill
*
< 200,000 t
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 //////////////////////////////////////////////// IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
No
POP waste
POP
disposal operation may depend
waste
99/31/EC on environmental preferability (annex V)
Method 1
for assessment of
low POP content limit
Method 2
for decision on
environmental
preferability
Proposals for low POP content
limits for different POPs
(Annex IV)
Concentration
of POP
in waste
POP waste
POP content to be
irreversibly destroyed
Method 1
for assessment of
maximum limit
Proposals for maximum limits
for different POPs (Annex V)
exemplary application for important cases
BiPRO
19
Method 1 related to Annex IV: Basic Principle
Concentration
of POP
in waste
Lower limitation criteria
for determining limit values
Upper limitation criteria
for determining limit values
(Limit value may not be below )
(Limit value has to be below)
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
0.01 ppb
0.05 ppb
result after application
of target function
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:
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
BiPRO
25
Criterion A: Analytical Potential for Dioxin Measurements
Cost (relative)
Standard
Limitation
Crit. A
Cost for dioxin
measurement in most
unfavourable matrix
2.0
1.5
1.0
Dioxin concentration
detected (TEQ)
0.01 ppb
0.1 ppb
1.0 ppb
10 ppb
Detection method: HRGC/HRMS
BiPRO
26
Results for Criterion B: Environmental POP levels (soil)
background uncertainty
concentration
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
BiPRO
27
Modelled mean contamination levels for soil in European countries
( EMEP data base )
PCCD/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
CY
0.03
CZ
PCCD/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
0.23
LT
0.36
9.61
0.27
0.25
0.02
LU
2.88
25.99
0.26
1.44
20.13
0.24
LV
0.29
8.84
0.31
DE
1.56
40.02
0.27
MT
0.03
0.13
0.02
DK
0.63
13.09
0.20
NL
1.81
46.96
0.25
EE
0.29
8.84
0.33
PL
0.75
13.72
0.32
ES
0.26
7.04
0.15
PT
0.21
6.63
0.19
FI
0.23
12.24
0.44
SE
0.31
11.52
0.29
FR
0.94
17.75
0.22
SI
0.75
17.68
0.33
GR
0.24
2.38
0.06
SK
0.81
13.15
0.33
HU
0.56
12.80
0.36
UK
0.70
33.22
0.38
IE
0.21
8.72
0.27
Country
Country
BiPRO
28
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
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
Continue with higher limit value
NO
Realistic?
Needed quantities
Comparison to available
capacities
(Transport, disposal,
administration)
Assessment of possibility
and time frame to build up
sufficient capacities
YES
Use as lower limitation criterion
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
10 ppb
limit
value
15 ppb
BiPRO
31
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
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
Feasible?
Consequences for
POP waste quantities
Monetary impacts
compared
to status quo
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
Amounts of Waste [kt/year]
3000
DB - soot (wood)
2500
DB - soot (fossil fuels)
Sec. Zinc - FGT residues
2000
Sec. Alu - sludge from WWT
Sec. Alu - filter dust
Sec. Cu - KRS-oxid
1500
Sec. Cu - filter dust
Iron smelting - FGT residues
1000
Elec. Furnaces - filter dust
Sinter plants - FGT-residues
500
HospWI - fly ash
PP biomass - mixed ashes
MSWI - hydroxide sludge
0
1ppb
5ppb
10ppb
15ppb
MSWI - APC residues
Threshold Limit
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
Covered Amounts [kt/year]
7000
6000
5000
Shredder - waste cable
4000
Shredder - white goods and vehicles
Waste oils - lower contaminated
3000
Waste oils - higher contaminated
EEEs - household equipment
2000
EEEs - large equipment
1000
0
1 ppm
5 ppm
10 ppm
20 ppm
30 ppm
50 ppm
Threshold Limit
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
0.01 ppb
Criterion
B
0.1 ppb
A
5 ppb
C
10 ppb
D
PCBs
Criterion
1 ppm
A
1 ppm
A
c
10 ppm
B
no limitations by C and D
other POPs
Criterion
c
5 ppm 10 ppm 30 ppm
C
B
A and C
POP pesticides
Criterion
c
10 ppm
B
no limitations by C and D
BiPRO
c
38
Results for Criterion Z: Existing Limit Values
"Low POP content limits should not exceed already existing
international/ community agreed limits"
Dioxins:
15 ppb
Source:Basel Convention
PCB:
50 ppm
POP pesticides:
50 ppm
other POPs:
50 ppm
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:
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.
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
Result:
Ranking
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
absorption/ingestion
from upper soil
layers
direct
exposure
slow diffusion /low transfer rates
for hydrophobic, lipophilic
substances between soil layers
BiPRO
42
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
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
1 ppb
SE
Guidance value less sensitive
0.25 ppb
EU
Sewage sludge for agricultural
application
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:
50 ppm
POP pesticides:
50 ppm
other POPs:
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 Criteria Criterion
C
B
A,D
option 1
50
ppm
Criterion
Z, Y
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
Criteria
A
10
ppm
50
ppm
Criterion
B
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
50
ppm
Criterion
B
Criterion
Z, Y
option 1
option 2
Proposal for Low POP content limit
BiPRO
49
Overall result for method 1: Low POP content limit
PCDD/PCDF (Standard procedure)
Criterion X
Concentration
of dioxins
in waste
0.1/0.01
ppb
1
ppb
5
ppb
Criterion Criteria Criterion
A, B
C
Y
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
absorption/ingestion
from upper soil
layers
direct
exposure
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
Contradiction of lower and upper limitation criteria
Criterion X
Concentration
of dioxins
in waste
0.1/0.01
ppb
1
ppb
5
ppb
Criteria Criterion Criterion
A, B
C
Y
10
ppb
Criterion
D
15
ppb
Criterion
Z
BiPRO
54
Selected solution of contradiction (first approach)
Criterion X
Concentration
of dioxins
in waste
0.1/0.01
ppb
Criteria
A, B
5
ppb
Criterion
C
10
ppb
15
ppb
Criterion
D
Criterion
Z, Y
option 1
option 2
Ban to directly place onto
or mix with soil if
PCDD/PCDF-TEQ of
1 ppb is exceeded (R 10)
Proposal for low POP content limit
BiPRO
55
Contradiction of lower and upper limitation criteria
Criterion X
Concentration
of dioxins
in waste
0.1/0.01
ppb
1
ppb
5
ppb
Criteria Criterion Criterion
A, B
C
Y
10
ppb
Criterion
D
15
ppb
Criterion
Z
BiPRO
56
Selected solution to solve contradiction (second approach)
Concentration
of dioxins
in waste
0.1/0.01
ppb
Criteria
A, B
1
ppb
Criteria
Y,C,D
suggested low POP content limit
15
ppb
Criterion
Z
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
Option 1
Option 2
10 ppb* or 1 ppb**
15 ppb* or 1 ppb**
PCBs:
30 ppm**
50 ppm
POP pesticides:
10 ppm
50 ppm
other POPs:
10 ppm
50 ppm
Dioxins:
*
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%
others (< 1%)
2%
MSWI - hydroxide sludge
1%
Sec. Alu - filter dust
2%
Sinter plants - FGT-residues
4%
Sinter plants - filter dust
5%
PP biomass - mixed ashes
3%
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%
MSWI - APC residues
1%
Sinter plants - filter dust
others (< 1%)
1%
Sec. Alu - filter dust
0%
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%
MSWI - APC residues
1%
others (< 1%)
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%
others (< 1%)
0%
not covered
18%
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 //////////////////////////////////////////////// IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
No
POP waste
POP
disposal operation may depend
waste
99/31/EC on environmental preferability (Annex V)
Method 1
for assessment of
low POP content limit
Proposals for low
POP content limits
for different POPs
(Annex IV)
Method 2
for decision on
environmental
preferability
Concentration
of POP
in waste
POP waste
POP content to be
irreversibly destroyed
Method 1
for assessment of
maximum limit
Proposals for
maximum limits
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:
D9
Physico-chemical treatment
D 10
Incineration on land
R1
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
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%
cement and
pozzolanic
solidification
thermoplastic
solidification
Proposal:
appropriate annual
leachate rate 10-6
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
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:
0.005 ppb
PCB:
0.002 ppm
POP pesticides:
0.005 ppm
other POPs:
0.005 ppm
Worst case estimate based on leaching rate for solidified waste
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
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:
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:
no restrictions
other POPs:
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. Emissions of other pollutants, resources and energy consumption
c. 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
0
inferior to benchmark
-1
remarkably inferior to benchmark: -2
stronger than benchmark
1
remarkably stronger than benchmark 2
BiPRO
72
Method to determine an environmentally preferable solution
Performance
\
Criteria
Benchmark
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
BiPRO
73
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 landfill
Hazardous waste landfill according to BAT standards
Solidification 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 landfill
Benchmark: 200 km to thermal destruction facility
Handling
Safe handling and compliance with occupational exposure limits
guaranteed
BiPRO
74
Exemplary case 1: POP emissions
 POP discharge
air
leachate
waste
Credits for criterion :
benchmark
option X
1.5 µg
0
0
< 1.5 µg / year
< 4000 µg
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
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.
BiPRO
76
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.
BiPRO
77
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
3
+1
Total
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):
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:
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:
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:
BiPRO
80
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
BiPRO
81
Assessment Methodologies and their Outcome: Overview
low POP content limit
maximum limit
xxxxxxx //////////////////////////////////////////////// IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
No
POP waste
POP
disposal operation may depend
waste
99/31/EC on environmental preferability (annex V)
Method 1
for assessment of
low POP content limit
Proposals for low
POP content limits
for different POPs
Method 2
for decision on
environmental
preferability
Concentration
of POP
in waste
POP waste
POP content to be
irreversibly destroyed
Method 1
for assessment of
maximum limit
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
environmentally preferable compared to
irreversible destruction?
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?)
no
yes
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
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%
cement and
pozzolanic
solidification
thermoplastic
solidification
Proposal:
appropriate annual
leachate rate 10-6
0.01%
0.001%
Source 1) to 6): LCA AVI fly ash, 2002 (all values are applicable to a 100 year period)
BiPRO
84
When is a solidification required?
annual leakage rate
below 10-6/year
above 10-6/year
concentration of POP in waste
below maximum
limit values
above maximum
limit values
low leakage rate
inappropriate leakage rate
leakage rate not relevant
 solidification not
required because
leakage rate is
below minimum
requirements
 solidification required;
leakage rate has to be
ensured by appropriate
solidification because
minimum
requirements are not
fulfilled by the
properties of the waste
itself
 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:
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
BiPRO
86
measurement techniques
BiPRO
87
Measurement of POPs in waste matrices: Problem of Matrix
•
“WASTE”
=
liquids

solids
“soil like”

“plastics”
homogeneous

<< interferences 
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.
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
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