Report compiled for the
Directorate General Environment, Nuclear Safety and Civil Protection
of the Commission of the European Communities
Contract No B4-3040/2002/341550/MAR/A2
Definition of waste recovery and disposal
operations
Part B
Neutralisation of waste specific environmental risks
Final report March 2004
Authors:
Knut Sander, Dirk Jepsen, Stephanie Schilling, Christian Tebert, Anne Ipsen
Ökopol GmbH
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Nernstweg 32-34
22765 Hamburg, Germany
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Disclaimer and copyright notice
The Study was paid by the European Commission and the copyright belongs to the
European Commission.
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Table of contents
1
Background and approach ...................................................................................... 7
2
Legal aspects .......................................................................................................... 7
3
Methodology ......................................................................................................... 11
3.1 Specific waste properties and environmental issues....................................... 11
3.1.1
Potential level of uncertainty ................................................................... 11
3.1.2
Potential environmental impacts .............................................................. 12
3.1.3
Potential safety risks .............................................................................. 14
3.1.4
Overall assessment scheme .................................................................... 15
3.1.5
Qualitative assessment ........................................................................... 16
3.2 Description of waste and recovery chain ......................................................... 17
3.2.1
Description of primary waste................................................................... 17
3.2.2
Description of the recovery chain............................................................. 17
3.2.3
General comparison options .................................................................... 18
3.2.4
Selection of the reference products.......................................................... 20
3.2.5
Visualisation .......................................................................................... 21
4
Selected waste streams ........................................................................................ 24
4.1 Waste oil........................................................................................................... 24
4.1.1
Current waste situation........................................................................... 24
4.1.2
Description of waste oil........................................................................... 24
4.1.3
Assessed recovery chain ......................................................................... 25
4.1.4
Comparable products ............................................................................. 30
4.1.5
Specific properties, potential impacts and risks ......................................... 31
4.1.6
Conclusions ........................................................................................... 33
4.2 Paper and cardboard ........................................................................................ 34
4.2.1
Current waste situation........................................................................... 34
4.2.2
Description of waste paper...................................................................... 36
4.2.3
Assessed recovery chain ......................................................................... 39
4.2.4
Comparable products ............................................................................. 42
4.2.5
Specific properties, potential impacts and risks ......................................... 42
4.2.6
Conclusions ........................................................................................... 48
4.3 Ferrous metal scrap from scrap shredding to electric arc furnaces................. 50
4.3.1
Current waste situation........................................................................... 50
4.3.2
Assessed recovery chain ......................................................................... 51
4.3.3
Comparable products ............................................................................. 63
4.3.4
Specific properties, potential impacts and risks ......................................... 68
4.3.5
Conclusions ........................................................................................... 70
4.4 Shredder light fraction (SLF) in the VW-SiCon process ................................... 71
4.4.1
Current waste situation........................................................................... 71
4.4.2
Assessed recovery chain ......................................................................... 71
4.4.3
Comparable products ............................................................................. 76
4.4.4
Specific properties, potential impacts and risks ......................................... 80
4.4.5
Conclusions ........................................................................................... 82
4.5 Gasification of SLF............................................................................................ 83
4.5.1
Current waste situation........................................................................... 83
4.5.2
Assessed recovery chain ......................................................................... 83
4.5.3
Comparable products ............................................................................. 89
4.5.4
Specific properties, potential impacts and risks ......................................... 90
4.5.5
Conclusions ........................................................................................... 93
1
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
4.6 Mineral waste from construction and demolition of buildings ........................ 94
4.6.1
Current waste situation........................................................................... 94
4.6.2
Assessed recovery chain ......................................................................... 97
4.6.3
Comparable products ........................................................................... 101
4.6.4
Specific properties, potential impacts and risks ....................................... 110
4.6.5
Conclusions ......................................................................................... 112
4.7 Electric arc furnace slag from thermal processes for road construction ....... 113
4.7.1
Current waste situation......................................................................... 113
4.7.2
Assessed recovery chain ....................................................................... 114
4.7.3
Comparable products ........................................................................... 117
4.7.4
Specific properties, potential impacts and risks ....................................... 118
4.7.5
Conclusions ......................................................................................... 120
4.8 Filter dust from electric arc furnaces in zinc production ............................... 121
4.8.1
Current waste situation......................................................................... 121
4.8.2
Assessed recovery chain ....................................................................... 123
4.8.3
Comparable products ........................................................................... 129
4.8.4
Specific properties, potential impacts and risks ....................................... 131
4.8.5
Conclusions ......................................................................................... 134
4.9 Fly ash from hard coal power stations in cement blending ........................... 135
4.9.1
Current waste situation......................................................................... 135
4.9.2
Assessed recovery chain ....................................................................... 136
4.9.3
Comparable products ........................................................................... 142
4.9.4
Specific properties, potential impacts and risks ....................................... 144
4.9.5
Conclusions ......................................................................................... 146
4.10 Solvents from paint shops and printing industry........................................... 147
4.10.1
Current waste situation......................................................................... 147
4.10.2
Assessed recovery chain ....................................................................... 148
4.10.3
Comparable products ........................................................................... 154
4.10.4
Specific properties, potential impacts and risks ....................................... 156
4.10.5
Conclusions ......................................................................................... 159
4.11 Waste wood.................................................................................................... 160
4.11.1
Current waste situation......................................................................... 160
4.11.2
Waste flows for wood in Europe ............................................................ 160
4.11.3
Assessed recovery chain ....................................................................... 161
4.11.4
Comparable products ........................................................................... 168
4.11.5
Specific properties, potential impacts and risks ....................................... 172
4.11.6
Conclusions ......................................................................................... 174
5
Summary and conclusions .................................................................................. 175
5.1 Methodology................................................................................................... 176
5.2 General results ............................................................................................... 179
5.3 Results from case studies .............................................................................. 181
5.4 Comparison with possible “Reference products”........................................... 186
6
References .......................................................................................................... 192
2
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Tables
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
1: Overview of the assessment scheme ............................................................................. 15
2: Typical analytical data for the assessed waste oils .......................................................... 27
3: Potential risks of several components of these waste oils ................................................ 28
4: Technical properties and specifications of re-refined oil................................................... 30
5: Specific properties, potential impacts and risks............................................................... 31
6: Use of recovered paper in Europe in 2001 ..................................................................... 35
7: Production of different paper grades and their share of recovered paper .......................... 39
8: Potential environmental impact and risk for EN 643 1.02................................................. 43
9: Potential environmental impact and risk for EN 643 1.11................................................. 46
10: Frequently found products in mixed and collected scrap................................................ 54
11: Chemical composition of ferrous castings..................................................................... 56
12: Chemical composition of EAF dust from the production of carbon steel/low alloyed steel and
high alloyed steel................................................................................................... 58
13: Two samples of composition of scrap grade E40........................................................... 60
14: Aimed analytical contents according to ESSS ................................................................ 62
15: Chemical Composition of EN standard Steels ................................................................ 64
16: Example of the composition of iron ore........................................................................ 65
17: Potential impacts and risks for scrap............................................................................ 68
18: Composition of shredder light fraction ......................................................................... 73
19: Composition of “Granulate” (expected average values) ................................................. 75
20: Concentrations of different substances in coal .............................................................. 76
21: Heavy metal content of water-free mineral coal............................................................ 77
22: Example of the composition of coke for one German blast furnace ................................. 77
23: Examples of the composition of heavy fuel oils............................................................. 78
24: Target values for “Granulate” ..................................................................................... 80
25: Potential impacts and risks for scrap............................................................................ 80
26: Composition of shredder light fraction ......................................................................... 85
27: Pollutant limiting values for solid waste ....................................................................... 86
28: Pollutant limiting values for waste containing oil/oil phase............................................. 86
29: Pollutant limiting values for watery waste/water phase ................................................. 86
30: Composition of raw syngas from the BGL gasifier ......................................................... 88
31: Composition of syngas ............................................................................................... 88
32: Potential impacts and risks for SLF .............................................................................. 90
33: Core C & DW arising as a proportion of apparent consumption of primary aggregates ..... 95
34: Fate of core C & DW in Europe ................................................................................... 96
35: Mineral construction and demolition waste listed in the European Waste Catalogue ......... 98
36: Hazardous substances within mineral C & DW .............................................................. 99
37: Austrian standard for recycling of building and construction materials .......................... 107
38: German technical rules for the valuation of mineral residue and waste, especially building
waste ................................................................................................................. 108
39: Maximum values and the acceptable deviation for different classes of recycling construction
materials............................................................................................................. 109
40: Potential impacts and risks for mineral C&DW ............................................................ 110
41: Examples of the composition of EAF slag ................................................................... 115
42: Average concentration of eluants from EAF slag ......................................................... 115
43: Fate of EAF filter dust in the European Union in 1997 ................................................. 122
44: Chemical composition of EAF filter dust from the production of carbon steel and low alloyed
steel ................................................................................................................... 125
45: Exemplary dioxin and furan data from electric arc furnaces ......................................... 125
46: Typical composition of Waelz oxide ........................................................................... 127
47: Effect of leaching of Waelz oxide............................................................................... 128
48: EN Standard 1179 for zinc production........................................................................ 130
49: Potential impacts and risks for recovered EAF filter dust.............................................. 132
50: Chemical composition of hard coal power plant fly ash used in the cement industry ...... 137
51: Exemplary organic and halogen data of fly ash from hard coal power plants ................. 139
3
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Table 52: EN Standard 450 on fly ash for the cement industry ................................................... 141
Table 53: Potential impacts and risks arising from the waste during the recovery chain of fly ash.. 144
Table 54: Typical code numbers of the recovery chain for solvents from manufacturing, formulation,
supply and use of coatings, adhesives, sealants and printing inks ............................ 150
Table 55: Typical water content of solvent waste from printing industry...................................... 150
Table 56: Average composition of paint wastes......................................................................... 151
Table 57: Exemplary composition of the inputs to distillation...................................................... 153
Table 58: Exemplary output amounts from the distillation .......................................................... 153
Table 59: Exemplary composition of a mixture from five recovery fractions ................................. 154
Table 60: Potential impacts and risks for recovered solvents ...................................................... 156
Table 61: Estimates for the annual amount of recovered wood................................................... 160
Table 62: Wood listed in the European Waste Catalogue ........................................................... 162
Table 63: Main source for the contamination of waste wood ...................................................... 163
Table 64: Exemplary weights of foreign materials within industrial waste wood ........................... 164
Table 65: Analysis of the main composition of particle boards .................................................... 165
Table 66: Analytical data from particle boards and fruit boxes regarding contaminants................. 165
Table 67: EPF industry standard for delivery conditions of recycled wood.................................... 166
Table 68: Limit values for wood chips used in the manufacture of derived timber products ........... 167
Table 69: Typical values for virgin wood materials, logging residues ........................................... 170
Table 70: EPF industry standard for wood based panels containing recycled wood ....................... 171
Table 71: Potential impacts and risks for recovered wood .......................................................... 172
Table 72: Wastes and recovery chains considered within the scope of the case studies ................ 175
4
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Figures
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
1: Different types of potential environmental impacts ........................................................ 13
2: Unit operations of the assessed recovery chain ............................................................. 17
3: Principle comparable “products” .................................................................................. 19
4: Elaboration, adoption and application of different kinds of standards .............................. 20
5: The problem of diverging types of basis materials ......................................................... 21
6: Basic elements of the described methodology ............................................................... 22
7: Main elements of the “minimum method” ..................................................................... 23
8: Annual flow of lubricating oil and waste oil in Europe .................................................... 24
9: Unit operations in the recovery chain of waste oils ........................................................ 25
10: Development of the potential level of uncertainty for waste oil ..................................... 32
11: Development of the potential environmental impact for waste oil.................................. 32
12: Development of the potential safety risk for waste oil .................................................. 33
13: Paper and cardboard in Europe per year..................................................................... 35
14: The sources of recovered paper and cardboard ........................................................... 36
15: Recovery chain for paper and cardboard..................................................................... 40
16: Development of the potential level of uncertainty for EN 643 1.02 ................................ 44
17: Development of the potential environmental impacts for EN 643 1.02 ........................... 44
18: Development of the potential safety risks for EN 643 1.02............................................ 45
19: Development of the potential level of uncertainty for EN 643 1.11 ................................ 47
20: Development of the potential environmental impacts for EN 643 1.11 ........................... 47
21: Development of the potential safety risks for EN 643 1.11............................................ 48
22: Scrap flows in Europe ............................................................................................... 50
23: Assessed recovery chain............................................................................................ 52
24: Origins of ferrous scrap in Europe .............................................................................. 52
25: Exemplary origin of scrap at a shredding site .............................................................. 53
26: Approximation to impurities in shredder scrap............................................................. 57
27: VOC concentration in the off-gas of an EAF................................................................. 59
28: Comparison of some elements in an iron ore and two scraps of grade E40 .................... 66
29: Potential level of uncertainty for shredder scrap in the recovery chain........................... 69
30: Potential environmental impacts of shredder scrap in the recovery chain ....................... 69
31: VW-Sicon process as recovery chain for SLF................................................................ 72
32: Comparison of concentrations of some elements in coals and cokes.............................. 78
33: Lead concentration in different coal and in "Granulate" ................................................ 79
34: Potential level of uncertainty for SLF in the recovery chain ........................................... 81
35: Potential environmental impacts for SLF in the recovery chain ...................................... 81
36: Recovery chain for SLF, first part ............................................................................... 83
37: Recovery chain for SLF, second part........................................................................... 84
38: Potential level of uncertainty for SLF in the recovery chain ........................................... 92
39: Potential environmental impacts for SLF in the recovery chain ...................................... 92
40: Total quantities of construction and demolition waste in selected EEA countries ............. 94
41: Recovery chain for mineral C & DW............................................................................ 97
42: Potential level of uncertainty for mineral C & DW in the recovery chain ....................... 111
43: Potential environmental impacts for mineral C & DW in the recovery chain .................. 111
44: Fate of slag within selected EU states and the proportion of slag types used for road
construction ........................................................................................................ 113
45: Fate of EAF slag in the EU ....................................................................................... 114
46: Assessed recovery chain for EAF slag ....................................................................... 116
47: Potential impacts and risks for mineral C&DW ........................................................... 118
48: Potential level of uncertainty of slag in the recovery chain.......................................... 119
49: Potential environmental impacts of slag in the recovery chain..................................... 119
50: Sources of zinc recycling ......................................................................................... 122
51: Assessed recovery chain for EAF filter dust ............................................................... 123
52: Ore grades of different zinc mines............................................................................ 129
53: Potential level of uncertainty of EAF filter dust in the recovery chain ........................... 133
54: Potential environmental impact of EAF filter dust in the recovery chain........................ 134
5
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Figure 55: Use of fly ash within the European Union in 1997 ...................................................... 135
Figure 56: Assessed recovery chain of fly ash used for cement blending...................................... 136
Figure 57: Ranges and mean values of the heavy metal content of hard coal power plant fly ash used
in cement industry (1).......................................................................................... 138
Figure 58: Ranges and mean values of the heavy metal content of hard coal power plant fly ash used
in cement industry (2).......................................................................................... 138
Figure 59: Potential level of uncertainty of fly ash in the recovery chain ...................................... 145
Figure 60: Potential environmental impact of fly ash in the recovery chain .................................. 145
Figure 61: Sectors of solvent use in Western Europe ................................................................. 147
Figure 62: Assessed recovery chain.......................................................................................... 148
Figure 63: Potential level of uncertainty for solvents in the recovery chain................................... 157
Figure 64: Potential environmental impacts of solvents in the recovery chain............................... 158
Figure 65: Potential safety risks for solvents in the recovery chain .............................................. 158
Figure 66: Fate and total waste wood amount in Europe............................................................ 161
Figure 67: Recovery chain for waste wood................................................................................ 167
Figure 68: Potential uncertainty of waste wood in the recovery chain.......................................... 173
Figure 69: Potential environmental impacts of waste wood in the recovery chain ......................... 173
Figure 70: Potential safety risks of waste wood in the recovery chain.......................................... 174
Figure 71: Description of the recovery chains............................................................................ 178
Figure 72: Prototypical progress of the development of the waste-specific risk potential ............... 180
Figure 73: The problem of diverging types of basis materials ..................................................... 188
6
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
1
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Background and approach
Art. 1 (a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on Waste (WFD)1 provides
that “‘waste’ shall mean any substance or object in the categories set out in Annex I
which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard” 2. This definition has
been the subject of several discussions, for example because of its inherent aspect of
uncertainty or due to missing guidance on interpretation.
Part B of the study analyses how the waste-specific, inherent, potential environmental risks change along the recovery chains. Comparison with the inherent potential environmental risks of functional equivalents produced from primary raw materials is used to identify at which stage of the recovery chain the typical waste-related
environmental issues are neutralised.
The approach was developed with the aim of delivering, in simplified form, a supportive instrument in the discussion about the environmental assessment of substances
and products. Objective of the work is to obtain a statement as to at what point the
waste-specific risk potential, from a technical-scientific aspect, is neutralised using
the example of eleven wastes.
The first phase of the development, using the examples of two wastes (waste paper,
waste oil) and with input from several stakeholders in subsequent discussions,
brought about several changes, inter alia, the change of scales for the assessment of
inherent environmental risks and a clearer differentiation between the three areas of
risks.
2
Legal aspects
The following section concerns recent decisions by the European Court of Justice
with regard to the definition of waste.
It has been stated in the joint cases C-418/97 and C-419/97 that “the method of
treatment or use of a substance does not determine conclusively whether or not it is
to be classified as waste. What subsequently happens to an object or a substance
does not affect its nature as waste, which, in accordance with Article 1(a) of the Directive, is defined in terms of the holder discarding it or intending or being required
to discard it” [C-418/97 and C-419/97 ECJ, 64].
1
As amended by Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 and 91/692/EEC of 23 December 1991 and the Commission Decision
94/3/EEC of 24 May 1996
2
Annex 1 of the WFD contains a list of 16 different categories of waste. However, entries Q1 and Q16 make clear that the list
does not have a restrictive character. (Q1: "production and consumption residues not otherwise specified below"; Q16: "any
materials, substances or products which are not contained in the above categories")
7
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
The example of an ordinary fuel is given which “may be burnt without regard to environmental standards without thereby becoming waste, whereas substances which
are discarded may be recovered as fuel in an environmentally responsible manner
and without substantial treatment yet still be classified as waste” [C-418/97 and C419/97 ECJ, 66].
Nevertheless, the method of treating a substance may serve to indicate the existence
of waste: “If the use of a substance as fuel is a common method of recovering
waste, that use may be evidence that the holder has discarded or intends or is required to discard that substance within the meaning of Article 1(a) of the Directive”
[C-418/97 and C-419/97 ECJ, 69].
Subsequent to these statements the ECJ distinguished between a complete recovery
operation and an “operation during which the objects concerned are merely sorted or
pre-treated [...] and which [...] does not have the effect of transforming those objects into a product analogous to a raw material, with the same characteristics as
that raw material and capable of being used in the same conditions of environmental
protection” [C-418/97 and C-419/97 ECJ, 96].
It is summarised that “if a complete recovery operation does not necessarily deprive
an object of its classification as waste” that must as well apply to operations as described above [C-418/97 and C-419/97 ECJ, 96].
Thus it can be concluded that a complete recovery operation does not deprive an
object of its classification as waste, it may only indicate the existence of waste. The
holder’s action to discard (or intention to or being required to discard) a material is
pointed out as decisive criterion.
Criteria for discarding
Annex I of the Waste Framework Directive clarifies and illustrates the waste definition of Article 1(a) “by providing lists of substances and objects which may be classified as waste [C-9/00 ECJ, 22].
In case C-9/00 the question arose whether certain materials fall within entry Q 11
“residues from raw material extraction and processing” of Annex I of the Waste
Framework Directive.
At paragraphs 83 to 87 of the judgement in ARCO Chemie Nederland, the Court
pointed out the importance of determining whether the substance is a production
residue, that is to say, a product not in itself sought for a subsequent use. “As the
Commission observes in the main proceedings of the case at issue, the production of
leftover stone is not the primary objective. The leftover stone is only a secondary
product and the undertaking seeks to limit the quantity produced. According to its
8
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
ordinary meaning, waste is what falls away when one processes a material or an object and is not the end-product which the manufacturing process directly seeks to
produce” [C-9/00 ECJ, 32]. Therefore, it appears that leftover stone “falls into the
category of '[r]esidues from raw materials extraction and processing' under the
heading of Q 11 of Annex I to Directive 75/442 “[C-9/00 ECJ, 33].
The ECJ mentions that one counter-argument to challenge that analysis is that materials resulting from a process, the primary aim of which is not the production of that
item, may be regarded not as a residue but as a by-product which the undertaking
does not wish to 'discard'. However, it is stated that such an interpretation would not
be incompatible with the aims of Directive 75/442. “There is no reason to hold that
the provisions of Directive 75/442 which are intended to regulate the disposal or recovery of waste apply to goods, materials or raw materials which have an economic
value as products regardless of any form of processing and which, as such, are subject to the legislation applicable to those products” [C-9/00 ECJ, 35].
With regard to the obligation to interpret the concept of waste widely in order to limit
its inherent risks and pollution (see C-9/00 ECJ, 23), “the reasoning applicable to byproducts should be confined to situations in which the reuse of the goods, materials
or raw materials is not a mere possibility but a certainty, without any further processing prior to reuse and as an integral part of the production process” [C-9/00 ECJ,
36].
The degree of likelihood that that substance will be reused, without any further
processing prior to its reuse is stressed by the ECJ as a second relevant criterion for
determining whether or not a substance is waste for the purposes of Directive
75/442 (in addition to the criterion of whether a substance constitutes a production
residue). “If, in addition to the mere possibility of reusing the substance, there is also
a financial advantage to the holder in so doing, the likelihood of reuse is high. In
such circumstances, the substance in question must no longer be regarded as a burden which its holder seeks to 'discard', but as a genuine product” [C-9/00 ECJ, 37].
It can thus be concluded from Case C-9/00 that a product which is not in itself
sought for a subsequent use can be considered as a production residue. The lack of
a determined subsequent use of a material implies that the material will be discarded. Only by-products which are (due to economic reasons) not (likely to be) discarded, fall out of the waste definition.
Therefore it is necessary to analyse which product is the main aim of the production
process and if the other substances produced are sought for a subsequent use. If a
subsequent use can be identified it is relevant if this use is certain or just a mere
9
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
possibility. Financial reasons for subsequent use by a holder may indicate that the
reuse is quite likely and therefore the holder will not discard the substance.
Nevertheless, the fact that a substance has an economic value does not exclude it
from being waste [C-206/88 and C-207/88 ECJ, 9].
10
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
3
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Methodology
3.1 Specific waste properties and environmental issues
Scope of the analysis is the “objective properties of waste“3. It focuses exclusively on
the technological and scientific aspects of the various waste-related questions.
For this purpose three corresponding characterisation categories were developed in
the course of the analysis. These categories include:
1. Potential level of uncertainty
2. Potential environmental impacts
3. Potential impacts on workers’ health
The term ‘potential’ highlights the fact that the subject of the assessment is the inherent properties of the waste. The potential impacts may, on the one hand, become
relevant e.g. by improper handling of waste, whereas on the other hand, in a normal
case, they may be systematically reduced by a suitable recovery system.
The following section explains the categories in more detail.
3.1.1 Potential level of uncertainty
A typical attribute of waste4 is the uncertainty about its precise composition. This
uncertainty comprises two categories:
1. Uncertainty pertaining to material composition;
compared to the original raw material the composition of waste may be
changed by degradation or decomposition as well as by impurities.
2. Uncertainty pertaining to contamination with other substances/waste (impurities);
depending on the collection system the waste can be contaminated by other
wastes.
3
4
As a distinction from subjective properties of waste such as, the intention to discard, legal and economical considerations.
In contrast to the usual situation with products
11
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
The uncertainties may be systematically reduced at different stages of the recovery
chain. The respective degree of remaining uncertainties can be described qualitatively (see Chapter 3.2, Figure 2).
3.1.2 Potential environmental impacts
Wastes - like products – have the potential to cause environmental impacts. For a
description of these, typical environmental impact categories are used which also
apply in Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) of products or for the assessment of production processes. The categories include5:
global warming; acidification; eutrophication; ozone depletion; photochemical
ozone creation; aquatic toxicity; human toxicity6.
Another important environmental impact category, typical for wastes, is the encroachment on to natural areas, which plays a particularly significant role with large
volume wastes and for landfilling.
When assessing the potential environmental impacts it is important to consider the
potential direct impact on the environment within the meaning of the inherent (intrinsic) potential/property of the waste to cause harm.
Direct impact comprises:
•
dumping of waste into water (if in liquid form)
•
dumping of waste on land (if in liquid form)
•
uptake into the body by means of ingestion, via the respiratory tract (dust or
gas that forms under normal conditions) or via the skin.
These impacts refer particularly to the categories aquatic- and human toxicity, acidification, eutrophication, ozone depletion, and photochemical ozone creation.
In principle the assessment of those impact potentials refers to the methodology and
the information from the “Classification and Labelling” Directive 67/548/EEC and
1999/45/EC7 respectively with the difference that the exposition situation is not taken
into considerations.
5
Source e.g. BAT-Reference Document on Economics and Cross-Media effects, Draft Nov. 2002,
Chapter 2
6
For the categories aquatic toxicity and human toxicity another category from ANNEX III of the “Hazardous Waste Directive”
91/689/EEC can also be assigned to waste properties.
7
Amended and replaced by 2001/60/EC
12
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
During waste treatment there is a potential of indirect environmental impacts from
the wastes8. Emissions can be assessed which result from typical processes such as:
•
combustion or pyrolysis,
•
fermentation with/without oxygen,
•
elution in an aqueous environment.
When assessing such indirect, environmental impacts in LCAs, relevant “impactequivalents” are calculated. For this purpose extensive equivalent value tables are
available.9
The following figure illustrates the two different types of environmental impacts described above.
Potential Environmental Impacts
Potential impacts
on the environment
Primary waste
with Inherent potential
to cause harm
uncertainty regarding
composition and impurities
Direct release
into the
environment
Indirect release
into the
environment
Treatment
(im-)propper
conditions
Potential impacts
on the environment
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Figure 1: Different types of potential environmental impacts
The available analytical basis information about the composition of material streams
in most waste recovery facilities is not sufficient for performing the outlined analysis
8
Inherent potential describes the risk which may occur in a worst case i.e. if no off-gas treatment is installed)
Compare. e.g. Annex 1 – Annex 8 of the BAT - Reference Document on Economics and Cross-Media effects, Draft Nov. 2002,
Chapter 2
9
13
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
in a detailed and thorough way. This concerns the collected primary wastes, material
streams throughout the different stages of recovery chains and recovered products10.
Regarding this lack of information about the potential risks of environmental impacts
in the various categories, we suggest the use of simplified indicators. For a qualitative exploratory analysis this is seen as an appropriate approach.
3.1.3 Potential safety risks
Safety precautions are of concern because in many cases waste is also handled in
direct contact with workers. The following potential safety risks are seen as most
relevant:
•
fire or explosion,
•
increased (mechanical) risk of injury,
•
risk of infection, in particular due to bacterial contamination.
These safety risks are caused partly by the waste composition and partly by impurities, mixed with the waste during collection.
While the assessment of potential environmental impacts has to take unfavourable
release conditions into account, consideration of safety risks refers to “normal” handling of waste/products.
The respective degree of these potential safety risks will be qualitatively described
along the different stages of the recovery chain.
10
In places where Materials Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) are generally available for primary waste, characterisation of humanand eco-toxicity is usually based on in-house self-classification and not on a comprehensive classification according to
67/548/EEC and especially 1999/45/EC. Also with a classification as hazardous waste according to 91/689/EEC the H-phrases
from ANNEX III are seldom strengthened with an appropriate classification with R-phrases. In the main classification takes
place with reference to some few parameters (e.g. halogen content, heavy metal content, etc.)
14
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
3.1.4 Overall assessment scheme
The following table gives an overview of the assessment scheme. The impacts are
not weighted but are assessed equally on a relative basis
Table 1: Overview of the assessment scheme
Topic
Potential level of
uncertainty
Uncertainty about
composition
Uncertainty about
impurities
Potential environmental impacts
Global warming
Acidification
Eutrophication
Ozone depletion
Photochemical ozone
creation
Encroachment on
natural areas
11
12
13
14
see
see
see
see
e.g.
e.g.
e.g.
e.g.
Annex
Annex
Annex
Annex
Assessment via
Uncertainty about the concrete material composition
In particular consider impurities of the waste during Probability of material alteration, deterioration due
the collection
to chemical reactions, impurities during use (before
the formation of waste)
Especially consider uncertainties of the nature and Probability of mixing/blending with other wastes,
degree of impurities of the waste during collection incorrect separation/storage
Theoretical potential for detrimental environmental effects
To what extent can greenhouse-relevant gases be Assessing the hydrocarbon matrix
released by means of incineration or fermentation
To what extent can incineration or fermentation
Direct effects: no R-phrases
Indirect effects: acidification potential11 of incineracontribute to acidification
tion (gases such as NOx, SO2, NH4)
Indicator: content of nitrogen-rich/sulphur-rich
compounds
To what extent does the direct release in water or Direct effects: no R-phrases
ground contribute to over-fertilisation i.e. to what
Indirect effects: nutrification potential12
extent will gases that have this effect be released (gases such as phosphate, H3PO4, P2O5, ..)
by means of combustion/incineration or fermenta- Indicator: content of phosphorous-rich compounds
tion
To what extent can direct or indirect gases that
Direct effects: classification with R59, as well as
contribute to ozone depletion be released
ozone depletion potential13 (diverse CxFyCLz compounds)
Indirect effects: not relevant
Indicator: content of CxFyCLz compounds (t/t)
To what extent will volatile hydrocarbons be reDirect effects: no R-phrases, but photochemical
leased such that precursor substances of ground
ozone creation potential 14 for diverse VOCs
level ozone are formed in the presence of solar
Indirect effects: not relevant
radiation
Indicator: content of VOCs (t/t)
To what extent can material take up the natural
Indicators: density of the material
area
4 BREF Document on Economics and Cross-Media effects, Draft Nov. 2002, Chapter 2
5
6
7 BREF Document on Economics and Cross-Media effects, Draft Nov. 2002, Chapter 2
15
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Table 1 (continued): Overview of the assessment scheme
Topic
Assessment via
Ecotoxic properties
To what extent are direct or indirect ecotoxic effects connected to releases in water15
Human toxic
properties
To what extent are direct or indirect human toxicological effects probable18
Direct effects: classification with R-phrases (e.g.
R54 – R58); aquatic toxicity potential 16 for releases in water (ppm/l)
Indirect effects: less relevant
Indicators: AOX, content of POPs, amount of PBT
chemicals, amount of heavy metals (esp. Cd, Hg,
Pb, Nl)17
Direct effects: classification with R-phrases (divers
e.g. R20 – R42
Indirect effects: human toxicity potential 19
Indicators: Content of dioxin, Pb, PAH
Potential safety
risks
Fire-risk
Safety risks with normal handling
Mechanical risk
Biological risk
How high the risk is of ignition, explosion or fire
during storage or handling20
Describes the (mechanical) risk of injury that may
arise during waste handling
Describes the (infection) risk which stems from a
biological contamination21
Classification as R1 – R19, R30, R44
indicator: content of material with a flashpoint < 21
°C
Probability that it contains sharp-edged objects
(e.g. needles, shards, etc.)
Content of organic substances, storage conditions
3.1.5 Qualitative assessment
In the developed method separate scales are applied for the qualitative characterisation of the changes regarding the potential level of uncertainties, the potential environmental impacts and the potential safety risks. The description for all potential
risks/impacts has the starting value ‘zero’. Decreases in the respective inherent risk
are shown in 20% steps of the whole reduction achieved over the whole treatment
chain. The point of lowest inherent risk achieved in the treatment chain is always
characterised as ‘-5’.
15
Equal to H 14 “Ecotoxic” Annex III 91/689/EEC “Hazardous Waste Directive”
compare e.g. Annex 3 BAT - Reference Document on Economics and Cross-Media effects, Draft Nov. 2002,
Chapter 2
17
Or also priority substances according to “Water Framework Directive” 2000/60/EC
18
Equal to H4, Irritant, H5 “harmful”, H6 “toxic”, H7 “carcinogenic”, H10 „“teratogenic“, H 11 “mutagenic”, Annex
III 91/689/EEC “Hazardous Waste Directive”
19
Compare e.g. Annex 1 BAT - Reference Document on Economics and Cross-Media effects, Draft Nov. 2002,
Chapter 2
20
Equal to H1 “explosive”, H2 “oxidising”, H3A “highly flammable”, H3B “flammable”
21
Equal to H9 “infectious”
16
16
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
3.2 Description of waste and recovery chain
3.2.1 Description of primary waste
Most of the properties of the primary waste mentioned in section 3.1 are determined
by the type of the respective waste and its origin or “prehistory”. In order to enable
a reasonable description of the initial state at the starting point of the recovery chain
the origin of the waste has been set in an exemplary way in the case studies. If possible, European Waste Catalogue (EWC) codes have been used for this purpose. In
addition a short characterisation of the “specific prehistory” of this waste has been
added. Regarding the uncertainty in view of impurities the chosen conditions of
waste collection have been taken into consideration.
As a basis for the discussion about relevance and transferability of the case studies
the specified wastes are put in relation to the entire waste stream of the respective
waste type/category in Europe.
3.2.2 Description of the recovery chain
A simple schematic characterisation of unit operations along the main material
stream is used to describe the recovery chain. The following figure illustrates this
principle.
Methodology
Description of Unit Operations and intermediates
Collection Recovery Chain
Pre-selection
waste
M1
Unit
Operation 1
Residuals
Production Chain
Treatment
M2
Unit
Operation 2
M3
Residuals
Unit
Operation 3
M4
Residuals
Further Unit
Operations
Residuals
Substitution of
Primary raw material
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Figure 2: Unit operations of the assessed recovery chain
17
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
After collection the considered recovery chain usually starts with an analysis of the
delivered waste. Through this first unit operation called pre-selection, batches are
sorted out which do not fulfil the quality requirements of the envisaged treatment.
Those batches will be treated differently. All accepted batches will be introduced in
the described treatment operations.
M1 to Mn describe points where waste specific properties/risks are assessed. The description of the unit operation focuses on the respective influence on the material
composition. In addition, separated material streams and material conversions are
described as far as appropriate.
With reference to recent rulings of the European Court of Justice the chosen recovery chain ends at the respective point where the material actually replaced primary
raw materials or is a fully compatible functional equivalent to the respective primary
raw material. Therefore the end of the recovery chain is indicated with an ‘I’, describing that the material has now input qualities for a following production process.
3.2.3 General comparison options
The waste specific properties/risks at the various stages of the recovery chain could
be assessed by the proposed methodology based on an absolute scale or relative to
comparable materials or specifications. Different bases are conceivable as a background for such a relative scale:
1. Composition of original products from which the waste derives,
2. Composition of products deriving from waste recovery,
3. Input requirements of manufacturing facilities that directly use the material
from the recovery chain.
In each case mentioned product declarations, product standards or similar documentation would be suitable for assessment.
The following figure visualises the different possibilities of such comparable “products” or reference “standards” at a glance:
18
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Chosing comparable “products”
Possible reference “standards”
primary
(pre)-product
Additives
Additives
Prozess A1
(reference 2)
• productstandard
• product declaration
A2
Recovery Chain
Primary
Product
A
Pretreatment
Using
Phase
Reference 1
• productstandard
• product declaration
M1
Primary
waste
Unit
Operation 1
Residuals
secondary
(pre)-product
Treatment
M2
Unit
Operation 2
M3
Residuals
Unit
Operation 3
Residuals
(recovered material)
• standard
• declaration
Prozess A1
A2
Direct use
Ins titute for E nvironmental S trategies
(reference 3)
• input definitions
Figure 3: Principle comparable “products”
The assessments showed that the selection of comparable products used as a
“benchmark” is of high importance. It is therefore useful to have a closer look at the
potential “reference standards”.
Different kinds of standards exist which differ, not least by their authoritative/binding
character. According to ISO/IEC Guide 2 a standard is a “document established by
consensus and approved by a recognised body, that provides for common and repeated use, rules, guidelines or characteristics for activities or their results, aimed at
the achievement of the optimum degree of order within a given context”.
The following figure illustrates different types of “standards” and the stakeholder involved in their elaboration, adoption and application procedure.
19
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Figure 4: Elaboration, adoption and application of different kinds of standards
The term EN standard is used within this study in order to refer to a technical specification drawn up with the cooperation and general approval of all interested parties,
such as industry, NGOs, consumer representatives, environmental groups and which
has been approved by a European Standardisation Body, like, for example, the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN).
3.2.4 Selection of the reference products
If compared with the original products from which the waste derives (Reference 1), it
becomes obvious that the respective products are often complex and comprise manifold components. Their characteristics and inherent environmental risks differ from
the target product of the recovery chain. Thus comparisons deliver only little orientation.
In the cases of References 2 and 3 it is, as a rule, possible to expect a functional
equivalence to the replaced or potentially replaced primary raw materials or (pre)products. This is suitable as a basis for the relative scale.
20
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
The type of the basis materials is of high relevance if the waste-specific inherent environmental risks are assessed. Thus comparison with (pre)-products made from different raw materials is problematic. Figure 5 gives a general overview of this fact.
The numbers used within this figure refer to the text above.
Chosing comparable “products”
Problematic of different raw materials
Ins titute for E nvironmental S trategies
Use
(1)
(2/3)
?
raw material B
raw material A
Production A
Recovery
chain
Production B
Figure 5: The problem of diverging types of basis materials
The described problem may be reduced to cases where materials from the recovery
chain are used for purposes of energy recovery if – as recommended - the requirement is set that a fully comparable functional equivalent has to be chosen.
3.2.5 Visualisation
The following figures visualise the basic principles of the methodology for the description of the waste-specific inherent environmental properties. Essential steps are
as follows.
Starting point of the examination is a waste with a given composition. Origin of the
waste and characteristics of the collection must be taken into consideration.
For the material composition (M1-Mn) in between the respective unit operations the
respective waste-specific risk as changed by the respective unit operation is shown.
21
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Consideration ends where the material from the recovery chain actually replaces a
primary raw material or where the material would be able to replace it.
Comparison can be done based on reference products which must fulfil the criterion
of a full technical and functional equivalence and must be made from the same basic
material.
Presentation method
Development of the waste specific properties
M1
M2
Ins titute for E nvironmental S trategies
M3
M4
Unit Operation 1 Unit Operation 2 Unit Operation 3 Unit Operation 4
Waste
as given
decreasing potential risk
Level a
Level b
Potential waste specific risk
Level c
End of
recovery
chain?
Level d
Level e
Reference product
level?
Figure 6: Basic elements of the described methodology
With regard to some aspects the initial methodology has been developed further with
two case studies in the first test phase:
22
•
it became clear that it is problematic to define same levels for widely diverging
waste properties22. In order to avoid this problem and aiming at obtaining a
consistent and uniform picture, the minimum method has been used. Within
this method the relative approach to the minimum level at the end of the recovery chain is defined.
•
experiences from the first case studies show that reliable data about the composition of the materials M1 to Mn are often missing. Thus the approach to the
respective minimum level will be described in rough steps (each step repre-
Ozone depletion potentials and human toxicity properties cannot be described by similar absolute scales in a sensible way.
22
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
sents a reduction of 20%) of the respective inherent potential risk. This enables a sensible integration of expert judgements into the methodology.
•
waste-specific inherent potential risks which are not changed in the recovery
chain are listed separately and not shown in the figure23.
Usually recovery chains are designed in such a way that the outputs are capable of
replacing raw materials in the following production processes. Thus their composition
corresponds (as a minimum), usually systematically, to the composition of the respective reference product (as Reference 3). General descriptions of reference products which, as Reference 2, are suitable for comparison with the recovery step, are
currently rare. These reference standards may be higher systematically but are also
lower than the respective minimum of the recovery chain.
This method therefore leads to a relative minimum, which can still contain high values of potential waste specific properties.
This is the case for waste where no primary raw material can be identified and also
for waste where the comparable product itself contains high potential risks which are
product-specific (e.g. oil).
Following figure shows the advanced methodology as an overall scheme.
Presentation method
“Minimum method”
Waste
as given
Ins titute for E nvironmental S trategies
M2
M1
M3
Unit Operation 1 Unit Operation 2 Unit Operation 3
decreasing potential risk
- 20%
-1
- 20%
Potential
waste specific risk A
-2
- 20%
-3
- 20%
-4
- 20%
-5
Minimum
Potential
waste specific
risk B
Reference
product I
Reference
product II
Figure 7: Main elements of the “minimum method”
23
Listing, if possible, is to be carried out based on absolute values.
23
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
4
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Selected waste streams
4.1 Waste oil
4.1.1 Current waste situation
The following figure depicts the essential marginal rates of flow of the present oil
and waste oil cycle in Europe.
Lubricating oil in Europe
(from : Hedberg 2001; all amounts without water)
Lubricating oil
production
100 %
Lubricating oils
4.965.000 t/a
4,965,000
Use of lubricating oil
(automotive, industrie, marine, processes)
4,5%%
4.5
4..5
Base oils
230.000 t/a
230,000
regeneration
Regeneration
31 %
10 %
506.000 t/a
506,000
5.5 %
5,5 %
69 %
3.405.000 t/a
3,405,000
Losses in use /
not collected
Used lubricants
1.560.000 t/a
1,560,000
Collected
used lubricating oil
21 %
Incineration
1.054.000 t/a
1,054,000
Fuels, asphalts
276.000 t/a
276,000
Figure 8: Annual flow of lubricating oil and waste oil in Europe
4.1.2 Description of waste oil
According to Directive 75/439/EEC “waste oil” is defined as lubricating or industrial
oil which has become unfit for its intended use, excluding wastes from oil refineries.
24
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
In principle waste oil that is suitable for regeneration originates from such lubricating
oils as:
•
•
•
•
About
motor oil,
hydraulic oil,
transmission/gearbox oil,
turbine oil.
75% of the total collected waste oils derive from the above-mentioned origins.
4.1.3 Assessed recovery chain
Currently different plants are operated for the re-refining of waste oils.
Generally, all facilities carry out the following depicted unit operations:
Recovery chain for regeneration of waste oils
„ Light ends“
M1
PreSorting
selection
M2
Pre
Pretreatment
Water &
sediments
“Light ends ”
M3
Cleaning
Cleaning
M4
Fractionation
M5
Finishing
Finishing
Heavy
ends
I
Heavy
ends
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Figure 9: Unit operations in the recovery chain of waste oils24
At present the 17 re-refining facilities differ from each other mostly with regard to
the cleaning and finishing technologies they employ25.
24
Compare e.g. BREF Document on BAT fort he Waste Treatment Industries, Draft Feb. 2003, Table 2.9
Information from GEIR Groupement Européen de l'Industrie de la Régération European Re-refining Industry section
GEIR members, end of 2002
25
25
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Currently the old acid/clay cleaning processes26 as well as the more state-of-the-art
thin-film evaporation (TFE) cleaning27 are relevant with regard to treated oil quantities.
The TFE and clay finishing process will be used in this example as information was
available on these processes.
4.1.3.1 Collection system
Used oil predominantly accumulates in the course of routine oil changes i.e. at car
repair shops. Also the draining and dismantling of end-of-life vehicles is a typical
source of this kind of waste oil. In addition, similar waste oils accumulate during servicing and repair of practically all large (industrial) equipment and hydraulic machinery.
These oils are stored in the respective workshops/garages – typically in specially
made containers and then delivered to specialised waste oil facilities. These waste
oils are typically declared as EWC 13 02 05 and taken to a re-refining plant.
4.1.3.2 M1: primary waste
Compared with products, the composition of the collected waste oils has been modified by ageing, oxidisation and impurities. These impurities can be connected to the
use of the lubricant (e.g. fuel components or "blow-by" from combustion engines) or
to the introduction of impurities during collection and storage (e.g. water).
The main components are:
26
27
28
•
72 % oils (including synthetic oil elements such as XHVI, PAOs28, esters),
•
15 % light and heavy ends (volatile cracked products, fuel components),
•
8 % additives (without oil), oxidation products, particles (impurities) and
•
7 % water.
With neutralisation and filtration (finishing)
In combination either with a hydro finishing or clay finishing stage
XHVI = Extra high viscosity index oil, PAOs = Polyalphaolefins
26
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Table 2: Typical analytical data for the assessed waste oils29
Parameter
Flash point
Calorific value (Hu)
Density
Viscosity
Sulphur content
Nitrogen content
Chlorine content
Water content
Oxide ash
Sediment
PCBs
PAHCs
Lead
Chromium
Copper
Manganese
Vanadium
Tin
Zinc
Nickel
Cobalt
Cadmium
Unit
°C
MJ/kg
kg/m³
mm²/s
% wt
% wt
% wt
% wt
% wt
% wt
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
Analytical Data
77 - 92
38.5 - 39.5
860 - 950
30 - 120 (40 °C)
0.59 - 1.03
unknown.
0.018 - 0.12
4 - 25
0.74 - 1.38
0.75 - 1.21
< 0.5 - 5
300 - 400
62 - 86
3.2 - 16
25 - 117
0 - 50
1 - 17
1.1 - 5.8
615 - 753
2.2 - 7.9
2.2 - 15
< 0.3
Available knowledge/information about the composition of waste oils at a chemical
level is very limited due to the non-availability to the public of recipes for motor oil
formulations and the lack of knowledge about possible conversions and reactions
during the usage phase.
The regularly increased water content and the partly recurrent PCB pikes in waste
oils prove that there is relevant contamination from other sources in spite of the very
direct collection system.
Table 3 shows waste-specific properties that are discussed in this section for some of
the components found regularly.
29
Based on an analysis program which Ökopol conducted in 1996 on the facilities at Mineralöl-Raffinerie Dollbergen GmbH (MRD) in Germany.
27
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Table 3: Potential risks of several components of these waste oils
Problematic Component
Potential Impacts
Mineral oils, with additives
Direct impact:
eco-toxicity
Cracked products formed during use of oils (toxicologically not fully
classified)
Direct impact:
human toxicity
Irritating + sensitising additive components
Non-classified additive properties
PAH
Direct impact:
human toxicity
Lead (from leaded gasoline, tendency: decreasing)
Indirect impact:
human toxicity
Zinc (additive constituent)
Halogen residues from blends
Sulphur from additives
Chlorine and chlorinated hydrocarbons
Indirect impact:
human toxicity
BTEX, AOX
Direct and indirect impact
eco-toxicity; human toxicity
Phosphorus and nitrogen compounds from additives
Indirect impact:
eco-toxicity
VOCs
Safety
fire & explosion risks in case of
contact with open fire
4.1.3.3 Pre-selection
Batches that would disrupt the re-refining process are sorted out by means of a simple input analysis.
4.1.3.4 M2: pre-selected material
After sorting, the water content and the amount of problematic ingredients are limited (e.g. PCS < 1 mg/kg, Cl < 0.2 W%) and easily flammable solvents are no longer
present.
4.1.3.5 Pre-treatment
Atmospheric distillation, water, light ends and fuel traces, e.g. naphtha contained in
the used oil, are removed.
4.1.3.6 M3: Pre-treated material
Large portions of chlorinated volatile organic compounds (VOCs) have been removed
and the water content is < 0.1%.
28
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
4.1.3.7 Cleaning
De-asphalting is performed by the TFE at very high temperature and pressure. Polymers, additives, heavy metals and degradation products are removed as asphalt
residue.
4.1.3.8 M4: Cleaned product
In particular the heavy metal content (i.e. zinc, nickel, copper, chromium) and the
amount of phosphorus and nitrogen are significantly reduced.
4.1.3.9 Fractionation
Under vacuum distillation a diesel oil fraction is separated from the material. Persistent organic halogen compounds are segregated.
4.1.3.10 M5: Fractionated material
To a large extent the material is equivalent to primary lubricating oil. The colour is
still clouded through subtle impurities.
4.1.3.11 Finishing
The material is mixed with clay to remove any polar and undesirable compounds by
means of adsorption.
4.1.3.12 I: Material after finishing
Besides the technical properties (see Table 4), the pollutant contents of basic oils
from regeneration largely correspond to those of solvent raffinates from virgin base
oil refining. This is applicable in particular to the metal and chlorine contents. However, higher quantities of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) are found in base
oils from waste oil regeneration compared to virgin base oils. Compared with the
PAH content of used engine oils, however, a considerable reduction of these components can be seen.
The sulphur contents are not significantly reduced in comparison to those of waste
oils30.
30
However, this is desirable in view of the product properties required. Virgin base oils are not de-sulphurised either.
29
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Table 4: Technical properties and specifications of re-refined oil
Property
Unit
Colour
Method
Typical data
Specification31
DIN ISO 2049
2.5
< 3.0
873-878
Density
kg/m³
DIN 51 757
875
Flash point (COC)
°C
DIN ISO 2592
> 215
Viscosity 100 °C
mm²/s
DIN 51 562/1
6.2
6.0-6.4
DIN ISO 2909
104
min. 100
Viscosity index
Total sulphur
% wt.
DIN 51 400/3
> 0.4
-
Chlorine (Wickbold)
mg/kg
DIN 51 408/1
approx. 12
max. 18
Pour point
°C
DIN ISO 3016
<-9
min. -9
Oxide ash
% wt.
EN 7
< 0.05
PCB content
mg/kg
DIN 51 527/1
below detection limit
-
Source: product specification for "Raffinat 38/40", MRD 1996
4.1.4 Comparable products
The waste-specific properties/risks of the material between the unit operations of the
recovery chain can be compared with:
•
•
•
Reference I: A ready-to-use motor oil (where the waste oils originate from),
Reference II: A primary base oil as used for the formulation of motor oil
(which can be substituted by the re-refined oils),
Reference III: Requirements on the direct further use of the gained materials
corresponding to ‘I’32.
The “enterprise standard” for the recovery product ‘I’ includes some relevant parameters related to the environment and security as shown in Table 4.
The “standards” available for comparable products (code of practice and/or standard), however, do not contain information which could be used for the assessment
of the waste properties.
The following observation will therefore rely on single analysis and recipe data33.
31
Engine oils on the basis of these base oils have been approved by a number of the major automobile and engine manufacturers e.g. BMW, MAN, Daimler-Chrysler, Porsche, Volvo, VW
32
Because the recovered material is directly used within the scope of the defined specification and after the respective inclusion
of additives in a larger market segment, it may be a comparable product.
33
After Ökopol, 1997
30
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
4.1.5 Specific properties, potential impacts and risks
The following table describes the potential impacts and risks as described in the section about ‘Methodology’.
Table 5: Specific properties, potential impacts and risks
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
I
Potential level of uncertainty
Uncertainty about composition
0
-1
-3
-3
-5
-5
Uncertainty about impurities
0
-2
-3
-4
-5
-5
Potential environmental impacts
Global warming
0
0
0
0
0
0
Acidification
0
0
0
-3
-5
-5
Eutrophication
0
0
0
-3
-5
-5
Ozone depletion
0
0
0
0
0
0
Photochemical ozone creation
0
-2
-5
-5
-5
-5
Encroachment on natural areas
0
0
0
0
0
0
Eco-toxicological properties
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
Human toxicological properties
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
Fire risk
0
-2
-5
-5
-5
-5
Mechanical risk
0
0
0
0
0
0
Biological risk
0
0
-5
-5
-5
-5
Potential safety risks
The potential environmental impacts for waste oil with regard to global warming,
ozone depletion, encroachment on natural areas and mechanical risk do not change
during the assessed recovery chain; therefore these categories are not shown in the
graphs.
The figures below depict the results in graphical form.
31
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Waste
as given
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Development of the potential level of uncertainty for waste oil
Pre-selection
Cleaning
Pre-treatment
Fractionation
Finishing
0
M1
- 20%
M2
M3
M4
M5
I
-1
- 20%
-2
- 20%
-3
- 20%
-4
- 20%
-5
Minimum
-6
Uncertainty about composition
Uncertainty about impurities
Figure 10: Development of the potential level of uncertainty for waste oil
Waste
as given
Development of the potential environmental impacts for waste oil
Pre-selection
Cleaning
Pre-treatment
Fractionation
Finishing
0
M1
- 20%
M2
M3
M4
M5
I
-1
- 20%
-2
- 20%
-3
- 20%
-4
- 20%
-5
Minimum
-6
Acidification
Eutrophication
Ozone depletion
Photochemical ozone creation
Ecotoxicological properties
Human toxicological properties
Figure 11: Development of the potential environmental impact for waste
oil
32
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Waste
as given
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Development of the potential safety risk for waste oil
Pre-selection
Pre-treatment
Cleaning
Fractionation
Finishing
0
M1
- 20%
M2
M3
M4
M5
I
-1
- 20%
-2
- 20%
-3
- 20%
-4
- 20%
-5
Minimum
-6
Fire risk
Biological -risk
Figure 12: Development of the potential safety risk for waste oil
4.1.6 Conclusions
The processing of waste lubricant oil to secondary oils is a good example of a complex and long treatment chain with 5-6 unit operations. They end with a finishing
step, after which the basic oil recovered can again be used in lubricant production.
None of these treatment steps has a particularly dominant influence on the reduction
of the waste-specific characteristics. In this way they are reduced evenly over the
whole treatment chain.
Plant independent standards, which would make a strong enough statement on the
potential environment-related effects of the “secondary” basic oils and thus would
represent a practical comparison parameter for the evaluation of the materials from
the recovery chain (Reference 2), are not available.
The qualitative analysis shows that typical waste properties (potential risks and impacts) are diminished in steps during the recovery chain from unit operation to unit
operation. It is only after defractioning or finishing (for the area of human toxicology) that a stable level is reached. Only the global warming potential is not influenced during the treatment chain34.
34
Indeed in this case it does not seem to be a waste specific property.
33
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
4.2 Paper and cardboard
4.2.1 Current waste situation
The paper industry produces a wide variety of products suitable for different purposes. There are various classifications of paper products; between the different uses
of paper and, in particular, the fate of the wastepaper from each class which also
varies. Typical categories of paper are:
•
newsprint
•
other graphic paper (total graphic paper)
•
case materials
•
cardboard
•
wrappings, other packaging paper (total packaging paper);
•
household and sanitary paper;
•
other paper and cardboard.
The main component of paper and cardboard is cellulose fibre. For commercial production of paper products, the fibre or pulp is derived from wood waste paper. The
fillers used are typically kaolin, calcium sulphate, talc, chalk and titanium dioxide.
The following figure shows the paper and cardboard production cycle and the implied
waste flow.
34
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Paper in Europe
(simplified based on CEPI 2002)
Paper and cardboard
production
100 %= 90,55 kt*/a
Others
Other graphic paper
4 %= 3,85 kt/a
39 %= 35,0 kt/a
Newsprint
Packaging paper
Sanitary and
household
6 %= 5,3 kt/a
12 %= 10,5 kt/a
39 %= 35,1 kt/a
about 90 %
Treatment to
secondary
raw material
in a paper mill
about 10%
Losses in use
6 % of total production
Separate collection of
paper and board
47.5 % of total production
Other recovery
options (e.g.
as fuel, disposal)
31 % of total production
Non collectable
and non-recyclable
Process losses
and exports
15.5 % of total production
* kilo tonnes
Figure 13: Paper and cardboard in Europe per year
The following table shows the use of recovered paper in different paper sectors.
Table 6: Use of recovered paper in Europe in 2001
Paper sector
Newsprint
Other graphic paper
Total packaging paper
Household and sanitary
Others
TOTAL
Total use of recovered paper
kilo tonnes
6.96
2.65
26.25
3.42
1.83
41.13
usage by sector in %
16.9
6.5
63.8
8.3
4.5
100
Utilisation
rate35
%
65.9
7.6
73.4
64.3
47.7
45.4
Total paper
production
kilo tonnes
10.57
35.05
35.75
5.32
3.85
90.55
[according to CEPI 2002]
The percentage of recovered paper that is used for the production as secondary raw
material depends on the type of waste paper and the intended type of paper to be
produced; the proportion may vary from 0 to 100%. For example, in Western
Europe, about 7 % of the recovered paper are used as raw material for graphic paper, about 18 % for newsprint products, about 65 % for packaging paper and 8 %
for household and sanitary paper.
35
Utilisation rate: use of recovered paper in a sector as % of total paper production in that sector
35
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
4.2.2 Description of waste paper
The origin of the recovered paper and cardboard described in this chapter is postconsumption (not production). Paper collected and segregated from refuse sorting
stations is not suitable for use in the paper industry. Recovered paper and cardboard
originating from multi-material collection systems and containing only material of a
valuable, recyclable nature, has to be specifically marked. It is not permissible to mix
it unmarked with other recovered paper and cardboard.
Converting
losses
15%
Returns of
unsold issues
4%
Households
38%
[CEPI 2002]
Offices
10%
Other trade and
industry
33%
Figure 14: The sources of recovered paper and cardboard
Paper and cardboard collection systems vary according to countries and sources.
36
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Relevant sources for waste paper are:
a) Industrial and commercial sector
• Large commercial areas,
• Supermarket chains,
• Industrial outlets (packaging producers, printers...),
• Large offices,
b) Household and similar
• Households,
• Small businesses, commerce, hotels, ...,
• Small offices and buildings.
The collection rate in the industrial and commercial sector, where collection facilities
such as balers or containers are normally available, is almost 100%. The paper flow
is often homogenous and consists of a specific grade which can be classified at
source according to EN 643 (e.g. 2.04 “heavily printed white shavings”, 3.01 “mixed
lightly coloured printer shavings” or 3.02 “mixed lightly coloured wood-free printer
shavings”).
In the non-industrial sector numerous sources have been established such as, for
example, bring-systems (paper banks, containers on public ground, multi-material
collection of recyclable materials) and take-off systems (kerbside schemes), bin systems, bundle systems and, exceptionally for some member states, multi-material collection of recyclable material trough bins located near households and commercial
outlets. This paper flow normally consists mainly of mixed paper and cardboard,
newspapers and magazines. It is, for example, without restriction on short fibre, it
can be classified at source according to the European list of standard grades of recovered paper and cardboard (EN 643, e.g. 1.02, mixed paper and cardboard).
With reference to the paper product which is to be produced, the different grades of
collected paper and cardboard make up different recovery chains.
The European norm designated EN 643 exists for paper. It was ratified in December
2001 and is to be used by industry professionals, organisations and individuals to
assist them in the buying and selling of this raw material intended for recycling by
the paper and board industry. The EN 643 list graded recovered paper and cardboard
in 5 groups of paper and cardboard of different quality.
37
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
4.2.2.1 Group 1: Mixed grades
The origin of this group is post-consumption. The group consists mainly of mixed
paper and cardboard, it is sorted, but without restriction on short fibre (1.01); after
sorting it contains a maximum of 40 % of newspapers and magazines (1.02); or supermarket corrugated paper and cardboard, which contains used paper and board
packaging with a minimum of 70% of corrugated cardboard, the rest being solid
cardboard and wrapping paper (1.04).
Furthermore, Group 1 includes mixed newspapers and magazines in different qualities (with or without glue, half-and-half newspapers and magazines (1.08), 60%
magazines (1.10) or 60% newspapers (1.09)) and sorted graphic paper for de-inking
(1.11), unsold magazines, with or without glue (1.06), telephone books (1.07).
Most grades of this group serve as raw material for cardboard, packaging paper and,
after de-inking, also for new graphic paper, newspapers, magazines or hygienic paper.
4.2.2.2 Group 2: Medium grades
This group contains post-consumer products and others. The paper of this group
consists mainly of newspapers with a maximum of 5% of newspapers or advertisements coloured in the mass (2.01) or unsold newspapers free from additional inserts
or illustrated material coloured in the mass (2.02), white savings in different qualities
(2.03 and 2.04), white wood free books (2.07) etc.
Most grades of this group serve as raw material for cardboard, packaging paper and,
after de-inking, also for new graphic paper and magazines and newspapers.
4.2.2.3 Group 3: Higher grades
The paper of this group is of high quality. The waste paper results from production.
Most grades of this group serve, following de-inking and bleaching, as raw material
for graphic paper and tissue.
4.2.2.4 Group 4: Kraft grades
This group contains Kraft grades, which result from production or post-consumption.
4.2.2.5 Group 5: Special Grades
Special grades are, for example, liquid cardboard packaging (5.03) or used wet labels
(5.05) from wet strength papers, with a maximum of 1 % glass content, and a
maximum of 50 % moisture, without other unusable materials. In most cases special
grades can only be recycled by using specific processes or can cause some particular
38
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
constraints to recycling, as well as products from household channels (see EN 643,
European List of Standard Grades of Recovered Paper and Board, CEPI, CEN, ERPA
2002).
Table 7: Production of different paper grades and their share of recovered
paper
kilo tonnes
kilo tonnes
kilo tonnes
kilo tonnes
Mixed
grades*
e.g. 1.01
Corrugated
grades*
e.g. 1.04
Newspaper and
magazines*
e.g. 1.06
High grades*
e.g. 2.03
News-print
220
0
7,129
77
Other graphic papers
56
24
1,949
801
Total newsprint+O G P
276
24
0,078
878
Case materials
4,109
13,379
269
707
Carbon boards
1,665
700
710
826
Wrapping, other pack. paper
1,807
1,297
340
480
Total packaging paper
7,581
15,376
1,319
2,013
Household and sanitary
394
87
700
2,307
Others
429
1,178
116
286
Total
8,680
16,665
11,213
5,484
Share of RP grades
20.6%
39.6%
26.7%
13.0%
Paper sector
* these groups are not identical to groups established in EN 643
[modified after CEPI 2002]
4.2.3 Assessed recovery chain
In terms of quantity the mixed waste paper grades (newspapers and other graphic
paper) and the packaging paper are of special interest. They make up the majority of
the collected paper.
Two widespread grades of waste paper were selected as examples for this study:
Grade EN 643 1.02 (Grade A, ordinary grade, 1) and Grade 1.11 (Grade C, sorted
graphic paper, 2). They differ in their composition and their usual recovery chain.
Both waste paper grades run through unit operations M1 to M5; M6 Cleaning and M7
De-inking and optional bleaching are described for EN 643 1.11 only.
39
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
In the following, two different recovery chains are described for EN 643 1.02 and EN
643 1.11. Cleaning and de-inking only counts for EN 643 1.11
Collection
M1 Pretreat- M2
ment/
Sorting/
Grading
-Treat
M3 Pressing M4
ment
Residuals: nonpaper components
such as metal,
plastic,
glass, textiles, wood,
sand, synthetics
M4 Pulping
M5 Screening
Rejects: non-paper
components, such as
metal, plastic,stickies,
polystyrene, wet
paper
EN643 1.11
only.
Cleaning
M6
EN643 1.11
only.
De-inking
I
Further
production
Paper
De-inking residuals such
as fillers,fibres, fines,
printing ink,stickies,
print colors, about
3 % of the product
[based on CEPI 2002]
Figure 15: Recovery chain for paper and cardboard
4.2.3.1 M1 Primary waste
1.
Origin is post-consumption, household collection or similar such as small businesses, commerce, hotels, small offices and buildings. The waste paper is a mixture
of various qualities of paper and cardboard. It has a relatively high risk of pollution
and contamination with other waste e.g. food waste, print colours, fillers and other
additives.
2.
Origin is post-consumption, sorted graphic paper, relatively small risk of pollution and contamination (no food waste, no other waste, no print colours, and no
other additives).
4.2.3.2 Pre-treatment
Batches which do not fulfil the quality criteria are rejected and will not be introduced
into the treatment chain.
4.2.3.3 M3 Sorted and graded with reference to grades EN 643
1.
Sorting with reference to grade EN 643 1.02. The waste paper is a mixture of
various qualities of paper and board. Grade 1.02 serves as secondary raw material
40
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
for packaging and cardboard. In this unit operation non-paper components such as
plastics, metal, glass, wood, sand etc. are sorted out.
2.
Sorting with reference to grade EN 643 1.11. The recovered paper consisting
of sorted graphic paper, serves after de-inking as secondary raw material for graphic
papers and for sanitary papers. The de-inking, washing and bleaching process is
necessary if new graphic papers or sanitary paper is to be produced. In this unit nonpaper components such as plastics, metal, etc. are sorted out.
4.2.3.4 M4 pressed waste paper
1 + 2 After collection and grading with reference to EN 643, the different paper
grades are usually pressed to reduce their volume (only if the distance to the place
where the recycling takes place is very short, is pressing unnecessary). This step is
irrespective of the different paper grades.
4.2.3.5 I After “Pulping and Screening”
1 + 2 Sorting according to size and weight, pulping of the fibres, elimination of all
remaining non-paper components, wet strength paper, stickies etc. Residuals are
disposed of or used on land, in other industries or as secondary fuel in the paper
mill.
For EN 643 1.02 the recovery chain ends here. The secondary raw material fulfils the
requirements of the primary raw material, which would be used as raw material for
the production of, for example, cardboard.
4.2.3.6 After “Cleaning” (for EN 643 1.11 only)
In this phase the secondary raw material classified in accordance with EN 643 1.11
runs through another cleaning process.
4.2.3.7 I: After “De-inking” (for EN 643 1.11 only)
For EN 643 1.11 only, separation of printing ink, stickies, fillers, fibres, fines in the
de-inking-process is performed. The paper is bleaching depending on the intended
type of paper to be produced. In Addition to bleaching chemicals and other additives
are added to the paper.
After these 7 unit operations the paper fibre can be used directly for the further paper production process takes place.
41
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
4.2.4 Comparable products
Waste paper is classified by its composition according to EN 643. Depending on its
grade (e. g. 1.02 or 1.11) the target product (e. g. for packaging or sanitary papers)
is also determined. So this process already takes into account and is adapted to that
the paper and board from which the waste already derives from will not necessarily
be the desired outcome after the treatment process. Therefore a comparison with
the original product (reference 1) will rarely apply.
The analyses or standards of the waste after the treatment (reference 2) or input
requirements (reference 3) of the sorted and pre-cleaned paper fibres are not available as those fibres are not traded but used immediately for the production of paper.
Steering of the waste is mainly done by classification of paper qualities before the
actual treatment and via adaptation of the process depending on the grade of paper
used.
4.2.5 Specific properties, potential impacts and risks
In the following tables some of the substances are allocated relevant to the potential
environmental risk of paper as waste. Two widespread grades of the waste paper
were selected as examples for this study (EN 643 1.02 and EN 643 1.11):
42
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Table 8: Potential environmental impact and risk for EN 643 1.02
(M1 to I without cleaning and de-inking)
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
I
Potential level of uncertainty
Uncertainty about composition
0
0
-2
-2
-3
-5
Uncertainty about impurities
0
-2
-4
-4
-5
-5
Potential environmental impacts
Global warming
0
0
0
0
0
0
Acidification
0
0
0
0
0
0
Eutrophication
0
0
0
-3
-5
-5
Ozone depletion
0
0
0
0
0
0
Photochemical ozone creation
0
0
0
0
0
0
Encroachment on natural areas
0
0
0
-2
-5
-5
Eco-toxic properties
0
0
0
0
-3
-5
Human toxic properties
0
0
0
0
-3
-5
Potential safety risks
Fire risk
0
0
0
-1
-5
-5
Mechanical-risk
0
-1
-3
-3
-5
-5
Biological -risk
0
0
0
-1
-5
-5
The potential environmental impacts for waste paper concerning global warming,
acidification, ozone depletion and photochemical ozone creation do not change during the assessed recovery chain; therefore these categories are not shown in the
graphs.
43
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
The following graphs show the results in graphical form:
Figure 16: Development of the potential level of uncertainty for EN 643
1.02
Figure 17: Development of the potential environmental impacts for EN 643
1.02
44
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Figure 18: Development of the potential safety risks for EN 643 1.02
45
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Table 9: Potential environmental impact and risk for EN 643 1.1136
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
M6
M7
I
Potential level of uncertainty
Uncertainty about composition
0
0
-1
-1
-2
-4
-5
-5
Uncertainty about impurities
0
-1
-3
-3
-5
-5
-5
-5
Potential environmental impacts
Global warming
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Acidification
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Eutrophication
0
0
0
-0
-3
-3
-5
-5
Ozone depletion
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Photochemical ozone creation
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Encroachment on natural areas
0
0
0
-2
-5
-5
-5
-5
Eco-toxic properties
0
0
0
0
0
0
-4
-5
Human toxic properties
0
0
0
0
0
0
-4
-5
Potential safety risks
Fire risk
0
0
0
-1
-5
-5
-5
-5
Mechanical-risk
0
-1
-3
-3
-5
-5
-5
-5
Biological -risk
0
0
0
0
-3
-3
-5
-5
The potential environmental impacts for waste paper concerning global warming,
acidification, ozone depletion and photochemical ozone creation do not change during the assessed recovery chain, therefore these categories are not shown in the
graphs.
36
(M1 to M7 including cleaning and de-inking)
46
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Figure 19: Development of the potential level of uncertainty for EN 643
1.11
Figure 20: Development of the potential environmental impacts for EN 643
1.11
47
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Figure 21: Development of the potential safety risks for EN 643 1.11
4.2.6 Conclusions
While the recovery chain ends after five unit operations with the treatment chain
which aims at products with lower quality requirements (EN 643 1.02), this, with
qualitatively high value target products (EN 643 1.11), ends after seven unit operations. The absolute scope of the reduction of the environment-related waste characteristics overall remains slight.
Paper fibres are mainly channelled into the paper production at the same location
directly at the conclusion of the recovery chain. The Waste Paper Standards of EN
643 are not applicable as comparison standard (Reference 2). On one hand they do
not relate to the material after the end of the recovery chain (sorted and (pre-)
cleaned paper fibres) and, on the other hand, contain no quantified statements on
disruptive or contaminant substance contents.
Only few (analytical) data are available concerning the composition of paper in the
recovery chain, data for primary raw material are not available. Using qualitative data
the developed methodology clearly describes at which points of the recovery chain
the environmental impact potentials are reduced and where they reach their respective minimum compared to the primary raw material.
48
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
General standards of the waste paper so far are not suitable for use as reference for
environmental impact potentials for paper fibre as they refer to the input composition
of waste paper not to the fibre. Parameters, which are used as indicators for the description of the environmental impact potentials, such as the amount of anti-foaming
agents and biocides, dyes, glues/adhesives are not included in these standards.
49
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
4.3 Ferrous metal scrap from scrap shredding to electric arc furnaces
4.3.1 Current waste situation
In 2002 consumption of scrap in the EU-15 was 85.5 million tons. The production of
crude steel in (mainly scrap based) electric arc furnaces (EAF) was at around 65 million tonnes in 2002 [IISI 2002]. This equals 68 million tons of scrap input [Eurofer
2003 pers.com.]. Around 24 Million tons of scrap has been exported from and 27
million tons imported by European Member States in 2001 [IISI 2003].
Scrap utilisation by steel production technique 2002*
Arisings
within EU
Import
Export
82.5 Mt
27 Mt
24 Mt
Scrap
Other raw materials
85.5 Mt
68 Mt
*Eurofer 2003
pers. comm
17.5 Mt
EAF
BOF
67.7 Mt
93.6 Mt
Crude Steel
Figure 22: Scrap flows in Europe
Two main types of crude steel production are used in Europe. Within the basic oxygen (BOF) steel-making process mainly pig iron is used as raw material, though as
shown in figure 22, 17.5 Mt of scrap is utilised (equating to some 18% of the ferrous
content). The BOF process accounts for about 60% of the total crude steel production in Europe.
Raw material for the electric arc furnace (EAF) is predominately scrap (minor
amounts of directly reduced material and pig iron are used as well37). For the produc-
37
Consumption of DRI in EAF steel-making was reported to be 400,000 t in the EU (15) in 1995 [I&S BREF 2001]
50
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
tion of 1 t of crude steel via this process 1.1 to 1.2 t of scrap are needed. This process accounts for about 40% of the total crude steel production in Europe.
Detailed information about the amount of different scrap grades is not available.
Unprocessed scrap comprises a vast variety of different compositions. Three different
origins/sources of ferrous scrap may be distinguished:
•
‘Own arising’ or ‘home’ or ‘circulating’ scrap: scrap which arises from metallurgical production processes like melting, casting and rolling. Its composition is
well known at the point of arising. Often no specific processing is necessary
for using the material as furnace feedstock.
•
‘New’ or ‘prompt’ scrap: these materials arise from the fabrication or manufacture of new components. Their composition is well known at the point of occurrence even if the variety of different kind of scraps may be higher than for
‘own arising’/ ‘home’/ ‘circulating’ scrap. Some processing (e.g. cutting, shearing, baling) may be necessary to resize and/or compact the scrap before it can
be used as furnace feedstock.
•
‘Old’ or ‘obsolete’ scrap: scrap from end-of-life products that have been discarded. The composition of this type of scrap varies widely dependent on its
origin and there is a relatively high uncertainty about the actual composition
of the single charges. It comprises for example ferrous scrap from machines,
metal packaging, end of life vehicles, construction material and construction
elements, electronic scrap and off-cuts from metal processing. Specific processing of end-of-life products is needed to separate the ferrous scrap from
non ferrous metal compounds so that it can be used as furnace feedstock.
4.3.2 Assessed recovery chain
This section covers scrap that is processed in a shredder in order to reach wanted
specifications for usage in electric arc furnaces (EAF).
The recovery chain comprises the unit operations pre-selection/sorting (after collection), shredding and the EAF, ‘M1-M4’ materials within the recovery chain and ‘I’ the
input materials at the end of the recovery chain included in this case study.
51
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Recovery Chain for Ferrous Scrap
Unit operation 1
Scrap
M1
Pre-selection
Unit operation 2
M2
Sorting
Residues
Unit operation 3
M3
Comminution
Residues
Dust
Unit operation 4
M4
O
Separation
Shredder
Residues
Figure 23: Assessed recovery chain
4.3.2.1 Collection system
‘Old scrap’ is the main input source for shredders and comprises different types of
scrap (e.g. end of life vehicles, machines, construction material, electrical and electronic scrap) arising in different areas (community scrap, industry scrap, postconsumer scrap).
Only general European-wide information is available concerning the scrap sources.
Figure 24 shows estimation for Europe.
Packaging
3%
Metal w orking
7%
Electric/
Electronic
6%
Other
2%
Building/
Construction
34%
Vehicles
21%
Mechanical
engineering
27%
[Romelot 1997]
Figure 24: Origins of ferrous scrap in Europe
52
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Figure 25 shows an example of the origin of input-materials at a European shredding
company.
Electrical
scrap
7%
Other
scrap
7%
Industry
scrap
32%
Car scrap
25%
Community
scrap
29%
[Swedish EPA 2003 pers. com.]
Figure 25: Exemplary origin of scrap at a shredding site
Collection is carried out by bigger and smaller scrap collectors depending on the
amount arising. It is usually stored on scrap yards where pre-selection respectively
sorting may be done depending on the required scrap quality.
Scrap retailers are often involved as link between collection and further processing. A
large amount of scrap (27 million tonnes in 2001) is imported [IISI 2003].
4.3.2.2 M1 Primary waste
Heterogeneity, physical structure of the material and wide varying characteristics and
origins of the scrap used as shredder input make it virtually impossible to describe
the composition of the input material M1. An impression of the product-related variety of the composition can be gained from looking at the deliveries made to shredder
companies. Table 10 describes an exemplary cut-out from a two weeks survey chosen at random in 1995 within the scope of a study conducted by the German Federal
Environment Office.
53
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Table 10: Frequently found products in mixed and collected scrap
Waste from mechanical workshops
Reinforcing iron
Exhausts
Car doors
Sheet metals
220 l barrel lids
Cans with harmful residue adhesions
Buckets
Shelves
Bicycles
Bicycle tyres
Bicycle wheels
Bicycle handlebars
Drums
Cooking pots
Stove pipes
Meshed garden fencing
Corkscrews
Pans
Garden chairs
Blades
Screws
Dish washers
Hot-plates
Drawers
Beverage cans
Pot lids
Car bumpers
Hooks
Cooking pans
Shock absorbers
Radiators
Car wings
Steel wheel rims
Cooker sheet metal
Refrigerator insert grids
Heat exchanger grids
Cooking surfaces
Fridge doors
Washing stands
Cooker parts
Pipes
Washing machines
Chimney pipes
Deckchairs
Washing machine drums
Canisters with harmful resi- Punched sheet metal
due
Kitchen appliances
Folding chairs
Car bonnets
Angled brackets
Spark plugs
[UBA 1996a]
A wide variety of industrial materials used during production and/or from the use
phase of products may be found in the scrap in widely diverging concentrations.
According to the output streams from shredding (~70 % shredded ferrous scrap,
~25 % shredder light fraction and ~5 % shredder heavy fraction) it can be estimated that the non-ferrous portion of scrap is around 30 %.
The further considerations are based on the assumption that the whole range of allowed materials is used as shredder input
4.3.2.3 Pre-selection/sorting
During pre-selection materials are separated which are not suitable to be processed
in shredders an separated by post-shredding separation and/or which hinder
achievement of the needed quality of shredder scrap (e.g. lead-acid batteries, refrigeration appliances, sealed containers and reeled materials, wire fencing, conveyor
belts). There are both environmental reasons and technical reasons for the removed
before shredding: as lead from the used lead-acid batteries would otherwise contaminate the shredded materials; as refrigeration appliances require the removal of
54
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
CFCs before the operation. Whereas the removal of sealed containers and reeled /
coiled materials is done to prevent damage to the shredding operation itself.
For specific waste streams regulations about pre-treatment of shredder input materials are of relevance (e.g. depollution and dismantling requirements of the ELV and
the WEEE Directive).
The European Ferrous Recovery & Recycling Federation (EFR) developed a proposal
for “European Specifications for End-of-life Goods as Shredder Infeed”. It covers
product-orientated requirements38 and material respectively substance orientated requirements39. However, these specifications are still in draft status since more than
three years40.
EFR stated: “The incentive to use scrap process infeed specifications ( e.g. the Draft
EFR Shredder Infeed Specifications) is (…) not present. The effect of infeed specifications would be to improve the environmental quality of the scrap output (…). Infeed
specifications can go further, as they are not waste stream limited but encompass all
infeed, than the current command and control legislative approaches as imposed by
the End-of-life Vehicles Directive and the WEEE directive on those two waste streams
only. EFRs European Shredder Infeed Specifications could not of course do less than
the Directives. The ELV Directive and the WEEE Directive have clear de-pollution
steps, whilst the shredder infeed specifications have these, but also other elements
added for other waste arisings” [EFR 2003 pers. com.].
4.3.2.4 M3 Shredder input
The input material for shredders comprises the whole variety of products, materials
and substances except components separated in the sorting step (see above). A precise description of its composition is not possible because of the reasons described
above.
4.3.2.5 Shredding
Shredding aims at the separation of ferrous and non-ferrous materials. Different
types of shredders are used in Europe (e.g. ‘Zerdirator’, ‘Kondirator’) in order to
downsize the input. The results of the shredding e.g. in view of distribution of particle sizes also varies depending on the wear of shredder parts.
38
End-of-life vehicles (Gp A1-A4), Waste electric and electronic equipment (Gp. B1-B2), Refrigeration appliances (Gp. C) and
Municipal scrap (Gp. D)
39
Explosives and sealed containers, batteries, Asbestos, Mercury, PCBs, chemicals hazardous to human health and environment
40
According to EFR the main reason is the opinion of EFR Members that such a specification would only be useful if it would be
connected with the possibility to change the status of the output of shredders from the waste to the non-waste status [EFR
pers. com. 2003].
55
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Certain shredders in Europe, and dedicated ‘Media and Metal Separation Plants’, utilise post-shredder technologies that separate the mixed non-ferrous metals one from
another, and other technologies that separate residual non-ferrous metals from the
non-metallic fraction, and technologies that separate certain plastics. The majority of
Research & Development in this sector is concentrated on the improved separation
technologies for the non-magnetic materials and non-metals.
4.3.2.6 M4 Shredded ferrous scrap
During comminution the shape of the fraction is changed but not the composition. It
remains the same as in M3.
4.3.2.7 Separation
The subsequent step after shredding is the separation of the three main shredder
fractions: shredder light fraction, shredder heavy fraction and the ferrous fraction (or
shredder scrap) which presents the actual target fraction of this process.
4.3.2.8 I: Shredder scrap as input to EAFs
Shredding is never a precise 100% separation. Shredded ferrous scrap contains nonferrous components. Additionally the ferrous material itself contains various nonferrous alloying elements and carbon. Cast iron as an example has a high content of
non-ferrous elements being an alloy of iron and carbon (ca. 2 to 4.4 wt%) which also
typically contains silicon, manganese, sulphur, and phosphorous.
US EPA describes the composition of different steels and irons as follows:
Table 11: Chemical composition of ferrous castings
Element
Gray Iron
C
2.0 – 4.0
Mn
0.40 – 1.0
P
0.05 – 1.0
Si
1.0 – 3.0
S
0.05 – 0.25
[U.S. EPA 1995]
Malleable Iron
(as white iron)
1.8
0.25
0.06
0.5
0.06
-
Ductile Iron
(wt percentage)
3.6
3.0 - 4.0
0.80
0.5 - 0.8
0.18
< 0.15
1.9
1.4 - 2.0
0.20
< 0.12
Steel Scrap from low
carbon steel, Nominal
composition (e.g.,
SAE 1020)
0.18 - 0.23
0.60 - 0.90
< 0.40
—
< 0.05
Shredding is usually optimised to meet quality requirements related to the ferrous
scrap output. The ferrous portion of shredder scrap is usually between 92% as a
minimum and 95%. It may be up to 98% only for special purposes. The remaining
56
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
share comprises a wide range of substances (alloying elements, organic matter, minerals, non-ferrous metals).
Detailed descriptions of pre-processed scrap compositions in view of substances with
hazardous potentials are rare and usually not representative because of the broad
variety of scrap types entering scrap processing operations and the difficulties of taking representative samples from such heterogeneous materials.
An impression about the composition of a part of the non-ferrous components also
found in shredder ferrous scrap, due to imperfect separation, may be derived from
the composition of one of the other shredder output streams, the shredder light fraction. The following figure gives an approximation based on two scenarios41 and a
range of different compositions of SLF.
1.00000
As
Co
Ni
Sb
Pb
Cr
Cu
Mn
V
Sn
Ba
Zn
0.10000
0.01000
Wt%
worst case (5% SLF)
best case (1% SLF)
0.00100
0.00010
0.00001
Substance
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Figure 26: Approximation to impurities in shredder scrap
Filter dust collected from the EAF fume arrestment plant contains a wide variety of
hazardous substances (see Table 12).
41
Worst case: shredder scrap contains 5 % SLF; best case: shredder scrap contains 1 % SLF
57
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Table 12: Chemical composition of EAF dust from the production of carbon
steel/low alloyed steel and high alloyed steel
Dust from carbon/low alloyed Dust from high alloyed/ stainless
steel production
steel production
[weight-%]
[weight-%]
Fetot
25
50
30
40
SiO2
1.5
–
5
7
–
10
CaO
4
–
15
5
–
17
Al2O3
0.3
–
0.7
1
–
4
MgO
1
–
5
2
–
5
P2O5
0.2
–
0.6
0.01
–
0.1
MnO
2.5
–
5.5
3
–
6
Cr2O3
0.2
–
1
10
–
20
Na2O
1.5
–
1.9
n/a
K2O
1.2
–
1.5
n/a
Zn
10
–
35
2
–
10
Pb
0.8
–
6
0.5
–
2
Cd
0.02
–
0.1
0.01
–
0.08
Cu
0.15
–
0.4
0.01
–
0.3
Ni
0.02
–
0.04
2
–
4
V
0.02
–
0.05
0.1
–
0.3
Co
0.001
–
0.002
n/a
As
0.003
–
0.08
n/a
Hg
0.0001
–
0.001
n/a
Cl
1.5
–
4
n/a
F
0.02
–
0.9
0.01
–
0.05
S
0.5
–
1
0.1
–
0.3
C
0.5
–
2
0.5
–
1
[based on I&S BREF, 2001, EUROFER EAF, 1997; Hoffmann, 1997; Strohmeier, 1996]
Even if a calculation of the amount of hazardous substances in shredder scrap from
that information is not possible42 it may give an orientation about their presence.
Most of the heavy metals are mainly associated with particulate matter from the furnace process as captured by the filtration plant. However, especially mercury that is
present in the gas phase is not associated with particulate matter. Thus it can not be
eliminated by filtration or Electrostatic Precipitators [I&S BREF 2001], [Theobald
1995], [UBA-BSW 1996].
Information about organic components in shredder scrap is rare respectively widely
diverging. PCB content is often mentioned in combination with electric and electronic
42
The amount of dust per tonne of produced steel is usually 10-15 kg. However, distribution patterns of heavy metals in the
EAF and contributions from other input materials and other scrap types but shredder scrap must be taken into account. It has
also be taken into account that often filter dust is recirculated in the EAF itself in order to raise the Zn concentration in the dust
for (external) recycling.
58
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
scrap. Chlorobenzenes and PCDD/F are other discussed components in the off gas
[UBA-BSW 1996], [Schiemann 1995], [I&S BREF 2001]43.
Figure 6 gives an indication about the presence of organic compounds in scrap fed
into an EAF. However, reliable data for an estimation of concentrations of organic
substances are not available, though following the earlier argument estimating SLF in
shredded ferrous scrap, the amounts would not be expected to be greater than 5%,
and in practice some percentage points less.
[Romelot 1997]
Figure 27: VOC concentration in the off-gas of an EAF
Another possible approach for approximation to the composition of scrap is the indicator of ‘Loss On Ignition’ (LOI). Loss on Ignition is a steelmaking term of art and is
also applied when using primary infeed. This can be used to describe the ratio of
scrap input to the extractable quantity of ferrous metal. The LOI of shredder scrap is
usually between 3 % and 8 % as an average. However, components with lower environmental relevance such as rust, moisture and sand have relatively high relevance
for this indicator. The LOI also includes the ferrous metal that is captured in the
fume arrestment plant.
43
[I&S BREF 2001] states that there “is no reliable information available telling whether the input of PCDD/F or the de novo
synthesis mainly cause the PCDD/F emissions”.
59
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Eurofer submitted a description of exemplary compositions of scrap grade E40 (see
Table 13).
Table 13: Two samples of composition of scrap grade E40
Lots
Fe
Mn
C
S
P
Si
Al
CaO
TiO2
MgO
E40
96,882
0,006
0,737
0,030
0,045
0,114
0,006
0,002
0,003 0,011
E40
97,114
0,119
1,065
0,031
0,045
0,401
0,015
0,033
0,01
0,019
Lots
Ni
Cr
Cu
Mo
V
Nb
Co
As
Sn
Zn
Pb
E40
0,067
0,207
0,250
0,008
0,005
0,003
0,012
0,017
0,028
0,204
0,048
E40
0,061
0,141
0,165
0,009
0,004
0,002
0,011
0,017
0,021
0,202
0,041
Lots
∑
E40
98,685
E40
99,526
[Eurofer pers. com. 2003]
These two examples show a Fe-content of ~ 97 %. Non-ferrous components sum up
to 1.8 % respectively 2.4 %. Organic components in these examples make up 1.4 %
respectively 0.5 % as a maximum. However, Eurofer44 also stressed the difficulties in
taking representative samples and in describing scrap in such a way that it covers all
possible compositions.
Standards / specifications
No EN standard for shredder scrap exists. However, shredder scrap is one of the
scrap categories covered by the “EUROPEAN STEEL SCRAP SPECIFICATION”
(ESSS). Its definitions apply only to non-alloy carbon steel scrap as raw material for
the steel industry.
“General conditions applicable to all grades, as is practically achievable in customary
preparation and handling of the grade involved” are described in the first part of the
ESSS.
In section “A) SAFETY” of the general conditions applicable to all grades ESSS requires:
44
[EUROFER pers.com. Nov. 2003]
60
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
“All grades shall exclude:
•
pressurised, closed or insufficiently open containers of all origins which could
cause explosions. Containers shall be considered as insufficiently open where
the opening is not visible or is less than 10 cm in any one direction;
•
dangerous material, inflammable or explosive, firearms (whole or in part),
munitions, dirt or pollutants which may contain or emit substances dangerous
to health or to the environment or to the steel production process;
•
hazardous radioactive material…”
In section “B) STERILES (cleanness)” it requires:
•
“All grades shall be free of all but negligible amounts of other non-ferrous
metals and non-metallic materials, earth, insulation, excessive iron oxide in
any form, except for nominal amounts of surface rust arising from outside
storage of prepared scrap under normal atmospheric conditions.
•
All grades shall be free of all but negligible amounts of combustible nonmetallic materials, including, but not limited to rubber, plastic, fabric, wood,
oil, lubricants and other chemical or organic substances.
•
All scrap shall be free of larger pieces (brick-size) which do not conduct electricity such as tires, pipes filled with cement, wood or concrete.
•
All grades shall be free of waste or of by-products arising from steel melting,
heating, surface conditioning (including scarfing) grinding, sawing, welding
and torch cutting operations, such as slag, mill scale, baghouse dust, grinder
dust, and sludge.
The section “Aimed Analytical Contents” comprises parameters as shown in Table
14. The pre-text to the table within the ESSS says: “The values pertaining for the
analytical contents are those which have been experienced in real terms in the various countries of the European Union and are achieved by scrap yards working normally with standard methods and standard equipment.”
61
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Table 14: Aimed analytical contents according to ESSS
CATEGORY
OLD SCRAP
NEW SCRAP Low
Residuals uncoated
SHREDDED
STEEL TURNINGS
HIGH RESIDUAL
SCRAP
FRAGMENTISED
SCRAP FROM INCINERATION
Specification
E1
Cu
< 0,250
< 0,400
E2
∑ < 0,300
E8
∑ < 0,300
E6
∑ < 0,300
E3
E 40
E5H
E5M
EHRB
< 0,250
< 0,400
< 0,450
Aimed Analytical Contents (residuals) in %
Sn
Cr,Ni,Mo
S
∑ < 0,250
< 0,010
∑ < 0,300
< 0,020
P
< 0,020
Prior chemical analysis could be required
∑ < 1,0
< 0,030
< 0,100
< 0,030
∑ < 0,350
∑ < 1,0
EHRM
< 0,400
< 0,030
E 46
< 0,500
< 0,070
No further requirements related to environmental aspects are mentioned in the specific section for shredder scrap. (e.g. PCB, chlorine content).
EFR stated: Currently the scrap processing industry is only considered to be processing "waste" into "waste". There is only the steelworks specification (EFR-EUROFER
European Steel Scrap Specifications) to be considered for the processed scrap output. These specifications were formulated primarily with respect to fitness for purpose and health and safety concerns, though some of these are EHS related, whilst
purely environment concerns would only be triggered if the scrap were to cause
emissions higher than the primary material infeed it substitutes. Normally processed
scrap, and clean new scrap, would not be expected to cause total emissions to exceed those from the primary raw materials. The incentive to reinforce environmental
criteria in the European Steel Scrap Specifications is not there; firstly as the
"end-of-pipe" emission limits are met, secondly as scrap is considered as waste, before it is processed and then again after it is processed” [EFR 2003 pers. com.]
In addition to the European specifications there exist national standards. The
Austrian Ö-Norm S 2080-3 for example puts some criteria in more concrete terms.
For the description of impurities it refers to the National Chemical Law. It requires
that no hazardous substance or preparation is allowed which would make the scrap a
62
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
hazardous waste (according to the national definition)45. Mixing of scraps is prohibited
according to the National Waste Management Law.
Usually additional specific terms of supply will be fixed between supplying and receiving institution. They may also comprise environment related requirements.
While terms of supply are binding for the direct contractors national standards can
be used as a basis for quality description. The general conditions of the “European
Steel Scrap Specifications” describe conditions that are “practically achievable in customary preparation and handling of the grade involved” [ESSS]. No quality requirements with a formal status of EN Standards exist.
4.3.2.9 Electric Arc Furnace
Regarding the focus of this case study the EAF has its relevance inter alia as additional purification step where unwanted and disturbing substances are separated
(e.g. organic compounds, sterile, non-ferrous metals, and tramp elements as far as
possible) (some 1 to 5%).
The EAF process consists of charging the vessel, closing the lid and lowering the
electrodes into the furnace. An electric current is passed through the electrodes to
form an arc, the heat of which melts the scrap. During the melting process, other
metals (ferro-alloys) are added to the steel to give it the required chemical composition. Oxygen is blown in to the furnace to purify the steel, and lime and fluorspar are
added to combine with the impurities and form slag.
After samples have been taken to check the chemical composition of the steel, the
furnace is tilted to allow the slag, which floats on the surface of the molten steel, to
be poured off. The furnace is then tilted in the other direction and the molten steel
poured into a ladle, where it either undergoes secondary steelmaking or is transported to the caster. The process takes around 90 minutes.
Subsequent process steps like the ladle metallurgy are not taken into account.
4.3.3 Comparable products
4.3.3.1 Reference 1: Final product
Crude steel as produced in electric arc furnaces is low in non-metallic impurities and
does not contain organic impurities. Valuable alloying elements in the scrap are re-
45
The content of hydrocarbons is limited to 0.2%.
63
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
tained as far as is possible for use in the finished steel, the further addition of these
being a cost factor.
While ladle metallurgy is not part of the assessed recovery chain, the increase in
concentration of potentially hazardous alloying metals will not be taken into consideration.
The ferrous content of crude steel from EAF is around 99 % for the carbon steel
‘family’, and around 70% for the stainless steel ‘family’. Remaining non-ferrous elements are predominantly ‘dissolved’ in the steel (e.g. Manganese, Nickel, Chromium
etc.).
Table 15: Chemical Composition of EN standard Steels
EN Steels
/elements
Steel 1.0300
Steel 1.8159
Steel 1.7220
Steel 1.4006
Steel 1.4516
Steel 1.4305
Steel 1.4362
Steel 1.4542
Fe
98.17
96.43
96.76
83.05
83.32
66.40
66.62
70.08
C
Si
Mn
0.06
0.55
0.37
0.15
0.08
0.10
0.03
0.07
0.30
0.40
0.40
1.00
0.70
1.00
1.00
0.70
0.60
1.10
0.90
1.50
1.50
2.00
2.00
1.50
P
0.035
0.035
0.035
0.040
0.040
0.045
0.035
0.040
S
N
Cr
0.030
0.20
0.035
1.20
0.035
1.20
0.015
13.50
0.015
12.50
0.035 0.110 19.00
0.015 0.200 24.00
0.015
17.00
Mo
Ni
Cu
0.05
0.25 0.30
V
Al
Ti
0.01
0.25
0.30
0.75
1.50
10.00 1.00
0.60 5.50
0.60 5.00 5.00
0.35
Table 15 illustrates the alloying elements present in the main families of steels produced to EN Standards, where 1.0300 is from EN 10016-2 illustrating a Carbon Steel;
1.8159 is from EN 10083-1 recounting a High Strength Low Alloy Steel; 1.7220 is
from EN 10083-1 describing a Chromium Molybdenum Steel; 1.4006 is of EN 10088-2
showing a Martensitic Stainless Steel; 1.4516 is from EN 10088-2 illustrating a Ferritic Stainless Steel; 1.4305 is from EN 10088-2 describing a Austenitic Stainless
Steel; 1.4462 is from EN 10088-2 showing a Duplex (Ferritic-Austenitic) Stainless
Steel; and 1.4542 is from EN 10088-2 describing a Precipitation Hardening Steel.
Products made with these materials return through the scrap collection system at
their end-of-life. These families of steels illustrate the range of compositions, the alloying elements present, that may be found in ferrous scrap.
4.3.3.2 Reference 2: Primary raw material
The EAF is a furnace which is usually operated with scrap. Pig iron or directly reduced iron are used in Europe in relatively low percentages.
The closest functional equivalence to crude steel from EAF is pig iron from blast furnaces or crude steel from basic oxygen furnaces even if several products produced
64
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
from pig iron or BOF crude steel cannot be produced from EAF crude steel because
of quality requirements.
Iron ore concentrate in the form of sinter material or pellets is the iron containing
input material of blast furnaces. Its composition varies widely from mine to mine and
even within one mine over the lifetime of the mine. No data are available free to the
public that allow a description of ranges of concentrations of substances with relevance for this study46.
According to the methodology of this study the direct functional equivalence for the
end point of the recovery chain has the character of the ‘Reference 2’.
However, the absence of free data and the expected broad variations of compositions hinder a comparison of waste specific environmental issues with the primary
raw material iron ore.
EUROFER and EFR submitted exemplary data on the composition of scrap grade E40
(see Table 14) and iron ore (see Table 16). It is important to keep in mind that those
data can only have exemplary character and do not describe the possible ranges of
compositions.
Table 16: Example of the composition of iron ore
Fe
Silica (SiO2)
Alumina (Al2O3)
Phosphorus (P)
Sulphur (S)
MgO
CaO
MnO
K2O
Na2O
Pb
V
Cu
Cr
Zn
Ni
Sn
As
Co
Loss on Ignition (LOI)
Moisture
Wt % (dry)
>
64
<
4
<
2.30
< 0.025
<
0.03
Ø
1
Ø
0.04
Ø
0.03
<
0.1
Ø
0.04
< 0.001
Ø 0.005
Ø 0.003
Ø 0.006
Ø 0.004
Ø 0.006
< 0.001
< 0.001
Ø 0.001
<
1.50
<
2
[EFR 2003 pers. com.]
46
This is even not possible for ores which are currently commercially exploited.
65
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
The exemplary compositions as submitted by EUROFER and EFR are compared in
Figure 28. Except for Vanadium the respective values for scrap are (partly significantly) higher47.
0.18
Iron ore
0.16
Scrap 1
Scrap 2
0.14
wt% (dry)
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
Pb
V
Cu
Cr
Zn
Ni
Sn
As
Co
[Based on data submitted by EUROFER, EFR]
Figure 28: Comparison of some elements in an iron ore and two scraps of
grade E40
The elements in the iron ore sample are remarkably low as is to be expected, though
values for Aluminium, Silicon and Vanadium are higher than found in the scrap,
whilst some 30% of the ore composition is not accounted for from the analysis given.
The elements in the scrap are in the form of alloying elements, or trace elements,
and as certain scrap may have had, during their previous life as a product, anticorrosion coatings, unalloyed nickel, chromium or zinc.
The elements in the Steel products are specifically alloying elements. In the case of
certain elements higher in the scrap than in the ore, for example Nickel and Chromium, these are advantageous to the steel product and further additions may have
to be made in order to comply with the EN standard Chemical Analysis.
47
For comparison matters were normalised to the Fe content (Iron 64 %, Fe-Scrap 1 96.882 %, Scrap 2 97.114 %)
66
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
4.3.3.3 Reference 3: Input specifications
No EN standard for shredder scrap exists. The European Scrap Specification System
describes values for several parameters as can be expected in the case of normal
operating at a shredder. Environmental parameters with relevance for the subject of
this study are not included in the specifications respectively concrete values are missing for certain elements and compounds of concern (as realised for example in the
Austrian Standard; see section 4.3.2.8).
Thus it is not possible at the European level to state with sufficient certainty by
means of comparison that the waste specific environmental risks will be neutralised
or not.
67
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
4.3.4 Specific properties, potential impacts and risks
The following table describes the potential impacts and risks as described in the section about ‘Methodology’.
Table 17: Potential impacts and risks for scrap
M1 M2 M3 M4
Potential level of uncertainty
Uncertainty about composition
Uncertainty about impurities
Potential environmental impacts
Global warming
Acidification
Eutrophication
Ozone depletion
Photochemical ozone creation
Encroachment on natural areas
Eco-toxicological properties
Human toxicological properties
Potential safety risks
Fire risk
Mechanical risk
Biological risk
I
0
0
-1
-2
-4
-4
-4
-4
-5
-5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-5
-5
-5
-1
-0
-1
-1
-5
-5
-5
-5
-5
-4
-4
-4
-5
-5
-5
-5
-5
-5
-5
-5
-5
-5
-5
-5
-5
-5
-5
-5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
-5
0
0
-5
0
The ‘Mechanical risk’ rises at the unit operation “Shredder” and reaches its lowest
point at the end of the recovery chain (also not included in the graph).
The figures below depict the results in graphical form.
68
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Figure 29: Potential level of uncertainty for shredder scrap in the recovery
chain
Figure 30: Potential environmental impacts of shredder scrap in the recovery chain
69
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
4.3.5 Conclusions
The recovery chain ends with the EAF. The processing of collected scrap for remelting in EAF consists solely of four unit operations. While the uncertainty about the
composition is mainly cut back through the pre-sorting, the environment-related
waste-specific risks are mainly reduced by the separation step in the shredder.
The comparison of the environment risk potential with primary raw materials or preproducts came to the finding that scrap metals have higher risks with some parameters. With this, however, it has to be taken into account that the comparison of scrap
with ores or pig iron is methodically problematic. Other bases for comparison at
European level are, nevertheless, not available. Thus the European Steel Scrap
Specification does not have the binding character of a standard, rather describes expected values. In addition, there is a lack of environment-related parameters or they
cannot be operationalised (e.g. PCB and other organic pollutants).
If crude steel is used as a basis for the statement about the neutralisation of waste
specific environmental issues it is a systematically inherent consequence that they
are completely neutralised right at the end of the assessed recovery chain.
It has to be taken into consideration that the alloying elements required in certain
steel product families exceed the elements available from the scrap, necessitating
additions of ferro-alloys to reach the required EN Standard compositions. Concern
about the low levels of trace elements, and relative to crude steel, the high levels of
alloying elements in the scrap, may therefore appear disproportionate.
A comparison of the materials within the recovery chain with reference 2 to “primary
raw material” is almost not possible because of the wide varying compositions of
ores and scraps. Furthermore the applicability of iron ore as ‘comparable product’ is
questionable48.
From a methodological point of view ‘input specifications’ would be an appropriate
basis for the determination whether the waste specific environmental issues are neutralised or not. Furthermore, concrete values for parameters with environmental
relevance are missing in the European Scrap Specification System and no EN standards are in use.
Thus there is no basis for a statement that currently the waste specific environmental issues are completely neutralised.
48
Several additional process steps are necessary to produce the quality of the EAF products from the output of a blast furnace.
The iron ore could be considered together with the other raw materials consumed in the smelting process which include coke,
the primary fuel and reducing agent; limestone etc.
If such a comparison is done on an exemplary basis the concentrations of environmentally relevant substances as included in
this study are most of the times higher for scrap than for iron ore. The elements in the iron ore sample are remarkably low as is
70
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
4.4 Shredder light fraction (SLF) in the VW-SiCon process
4.4.1 Current waste situation
The total amount of shredder residues (shredder light fraction plus shredder heavy
fraction) can be estimated to be between 2.5 and 3 million tonnes.
4.4.2 Assessed recovery chain
Currently, several different methods for treatment of shredder light fraction are practised in Europe or are under development. Two main approaches can be distinguished: direct recovery/disposal and pre-treatment before recovery/disposal. With
the background of the product-orientated waste directives (ELV Directive, WEEE Directive) those options become of greater importance where the shredder light fraction is pre-treated in such a way that a maximum contribution to the recycling and
recovery rates49 can be achieved.
There are several pre-treatment activities practised or under development in Europe.
Some exemplary operations respectively operation types are (in alphabetic order):
Galloo, R+ Eppingen, Salyp, VW-SiCon. Additional operations are known from other
countries such as Japan (e.g. Nakametal, NKK and Tokyo Metal) or the USA (e.g.
Huron Valley and RPI). Aside from mechanical sorting/treatment operations, such as
Citron, Ebara, IGEA-Reshment and Schwarze Pumpe, there are such thermal treatments as pyrolysis and combustion.
Thermal treatment operations are dealt with in Section 4.5.
For this case study, the VW-Sicon process has been chosen as exemplary treatment
chain.
The VW Sicon process comprises some mechanical treatment steps in order to generate feedstock materials for different purposes. For the output stream “Granulate” a
possible market of 500,000 t/a can be estimated [pers.com. VW]. The Austrian Integrated Steelwork of Voest Alpine applied for a permit for the use of more than
200,000 t/a. In the blast furnace in Bremen (Germany) around 100,000 tonnes of
plastics are used per year.
to be expected, though values for Aluminium, Silicon and Vanadium are higher than found in the scrap, whilst some 30% of the
ore composition is not accounted for from the analysis given. However, as stated the reliability of such a comparison is limited.
49
e.g. Article 7.2 of Directive 2000/53/EC
71
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Recovery Chain for SLF
Unit
operation 2
Unit
operation 1
SLF
M1
Preselection
Unit
operation 3
M2
Treatment I
M2
M3
Treatment II
Unit
operation 4
27% I
Blast
furnace
Treatment III
Output (II)
9%
Treatment IV
Output (III)
25%
Output (IV)
21%
Output (V)
17%
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Figure 31: VW-Sicon process as recovery chain for SLF
4.4.2.1 Collection system
Shredder light fraction occurs at shredding sites and will be transported as waste or
as hazardous waste50.
4.4.2.2 M1 Primary waste
The composition of SLF varies widely with the types of input (see case study “Shredder Scrap”).
Some exemplary descriptions of the composition of shredder light fraction are indicated below.
50
19 10 03* Fluff — light fraction containing dangerous substances; 19 10 04 Fluff — light fraction other than those mentioned
in 19 10 03 [COMMISSION DECISION of 3 May 2000 replacing Decision 94/3/EC establishing a list of wastes pursuant to Article
1(a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC on waste and Council Decision 94/904/EC establishing a list of hazardous waste pursuant
to Article 1(4) of Council Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste.
72
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Table 18: Composition of shredder light fraction
C
H
S
Cl
Hg
Cd
As
Co
Ni
Sb
Pb
Cr
Cu
Mn
V
Sn
Ba
Zn
PCB
[Rudolph 2000]
Min
Max
19
24.7
2.11
3.42
0.14
0.94
0.11
0.26
mg/kg
mg/kg
M%
M%
M%
M%
M%
M%
M%
M%
M%
M%
M%
M%
0.01
0.03
0.023
0.067
0.04
0.137
0.076
0.23
0.16
0.031
0.368
0.26
2.8
0.02
0.05
0.032
0.115
0.05
0.24
0.121
0.47
0.23
0.052
0.568
0.44
4.99
[DBU 1997]
Average
1.6
0.6
[ISAH 1991]
Min
Max
0.44
1.38
1
50
0.002
0.008
0.065
0.83
1.95
3
78
0.004
0.016
0.28
0.2
0.037
0.99
0.125
1.01
0.36
5.4
0.14
0.003
0.074
0.196
1.27
[NRC 1996]
Example 1
Example 2
0.003
0.004
0.186
0.09
1.674
0.607
0.009
0.559
0.966
0.41
30-100ppm
The data highlight the broad range of possible compositions of shredder light fraction.
The density of SLF is 0.3 to 0.5 kg/l.
No EN standard exists for the input fraction of a shredder or for the output fractions
SLF and SHF51. Rarely, individual terms of trade are established52. The operation is
usually optimised in order to achieve the required quality of the shredder scrap.
4.4.2.3 Unit Operation 1: Pre-selection
For shredders delivering SLF to the VW-Sicon process a list of permitted input materials (“positive list”) will be made mandatory. This list limits the use of PCB (targeting
at a maximum PCB content in the SLF below 50ppm), mercury, and mineral oil related hydrocarbons.
Additionally, SLF charges delivered to the Sicon installations will undergo specific examination (e.g. visual inspection and chemical analysis).
51
52
See case study “Scrap”.
See below section “Pre-selection”
73
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
4.4.2.4 M2 SLF after pre-selection
The shredder light fraction which is accepted as input to the VW-Sicon process contains a maximum of 50 ppm PCBs and not yet precisely fixed amounts of mercury,
and mineral oil related hydrocarbons.
4.4.2.5 Treatment I
In the first treatment step, the SLF is separated into four output streams by mechanical treatment steps (comminution, sieving, and separation). One output is made
up of metals, which are submitted to further treatment or recovery at installations
that are not part of the VW Sicon process. The other output streams are treated in
three different subsequent treatment chains of which the one that results in “Granulate” is further analysed in this case study.
4.4.2.6 M3 Raw Granulate
The “raw granulate” from Unit Operation 2 consists mainly of thermoplasts , elastomers and metal residues. Dust sticks to the material.
4.4.2.7 Treatment II
In Unit Operation 3 dust and fine particles are removed from the raw granulate by
washing. 25 % of the remaining materials that contains mainly metals, elastomers
and heavy plastics (PVC)53 are separated in two flotation steps. 75 % can be used as
blast furnace reducing agent. The “Granulate” is ground to achieve a particle size
between 0.5 and 5 mm.
4.4.2.8 I Granulate
After the flotation step the “Granulate” contains mainly thermoplastics and has a reduced chlorine and heavy metal content (especially those of lead, zinc and copper).
No standards exist for this output stream.
The composition is shown in Table 19.
53
With the PVC, the lead which is used as stabiliser is removed.
74
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Table 19: Composition of “Granulate” (expected average values)
Composition
Ash content (weight %)
Lower heating value (MJ/kg)
Humidity (weight %)
C (weight %)
H (weight %)
N (weight %)
Cl (weight %)
S (weight %)
Zn (mg/kg)
Pb (mg/kg)
Cu (mg/kg)
SiO2 (weight %)
MgO (weight %)
CaO (weight %)
TiO2 (weight %)
Fe2O3 (weight %)
Al2O3 (weight %)
[VW 2003 pers. com.]
Expected average values
10
35
∅1
∅74.4
∅10.5
∅1.3
<1.2
<0.2
<500
<150
<100
∅3.1
∅2.8
∅1.2
∅1.0
∅0.7
∅0.4
4.4.2.9 Blast furnaces
The granulate is fed into the blast furnace via the tuyières and replaces heavy oil or
coke.
75
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
4.4.3 Comparable products
4.4.3.1 Reference 2: Primary raw material
The “Granulate” is used as a reducing agent and as substitute for heavy oil or coke.
Representative data about the composition of coke as actually used in blast furnaces
is not available to the public.
Table 20 shows some examples for the concentration of different substances in coal.
Table 20: Concentrations of different substances in coal
Sb
As
Ba
Be
Pb
B
Cd
Ce
Cr
Co
Cu
Mn
Mo
Ni
Hq
Se
Tl
V
Zn
Sn
1
0.54
2
100
1.4
7.5
17
0.09
is
12
5.3
12
30
1.6
14
0.06
1
0.2
26
19
3
2
2
10
500
2
25
so
1.1
20
50
15
15
200
6.5
20
0.5
2
0.7
50
200
2
3
10
5
200
2
40
50
0.5
20
30
10
is
100
3
so
0.1
5
1
50
50
2
4
1
2
50
1
5
25
0.14
20
20
10
30
10
1
10
0.05
1
1
50
50
2
5
1
1
20
2
4
5
0.
2
9
7
1
20C
3
20
0.1
1.2
1
40
50
11
Examples in mg/kg
6
7
5.2
2
17
10
200
150
2
2
40
50
so
30
0.02
0.3
20
is
20
20
7
15
10
30
70
50
2
10
20
30
0.24
0.7
1
2
1
0.5
40
50
250
50
2
2
8
2
3
400
2
25
30
0.7
20
17
6
5
200
2
20
0.2
2
1
40
50
62
9
0.3
3
200
2
10
60
0.4
20
40
7
15
150
2
20
1
0.6
1
50
11
4
10
1
10
200
2
40
so
0.5
20
20
5
is
70
3
20
0.1
1
1
40
50
3
11
1
5
300
1
10
100
0.2
20
30
5
10
100
2
20
0.12
1
0.5
30
10
57
12
1
15
200
2
15
30
0.5
20
20
8
15
so
4
15
0.2
4
0.6
35
20
25
Table 21 shows values for three mineral coals as used in Austria and “typical values”
respectively.
76
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Table 21: Heavy metal content of water-free mineral coal
Heavy Metal
“typical” values
Arsenic (mg/kg)
1-5
Cadmium (mg/kg)
0,07 – 0,12
Chromium (mg/kg)
10 – 20
Copper (mg/kg)
15 – 50
Mercury (mg/kg)
0,13 – 0,18
Nickel (mg/kg)
10 – 25
Lead (mg/kg)
5 -25
Selenium (mg/kg)
<1
Vanadium (mg/kg)
20 – 50
Zinc (mg/kg)
10 - 50
n. s.: not specified; unv.: unverifiable
Example 1
3,0
2,0
23,0
23,0
0,15
26,0
44
3,0
29,0
48,0
Example 2
<5
< 0,3
< 30
< 30
< 0,1
< 30
< 20
n. s.
n. s.
<30
Example 3
3–5
≤ 0,3
26 - 43
18 -34
≤ 0,1
20 – 36
12 – 16
unv.
23 -41
24 - 31
[UBA Ö 2003]
Table 22 shows an example of the composition of coke as used in one blast furnace
in Germany54.
Table 22: Example of the composition of coke for one German blast furnace
(ppm)
min
max
Cr
46
79
Ni
14
29
V
60
77
Cu
16
21
Zn
38
48
Pb
10
19
Cd
5
7
Ba
124
124
[Stahlwerke Bremen 1997 pers. com.]
Figure 32 compares the shown examples of the composition of coals and coke. For
some parameters the values are higher for coke than for coal. In the other cases the
coke values are within the ranges of coals.
54
In the coal pyrolysis process the temperature of the flue gases is normally 1150 – 1350 °C indirectly heating the coal up to
1000 – 1100 °C for 14 – 24 hours. This leads to an evaporation of several components of the coal and potentially to a reduction
of the concentration of some heavy metals.
77
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
100
Example 1
Example 2
80
Example 3
Example 4
Example 5
60
Example 6
Example 7
Example 8
40
Example 9
Example 10
Example 11
Example 12
20
coke min
coke max
0
Pb
Cd
Cr
Cu
Ni
V
Zn
(in mg/kg; Example 2 and 6 >100)
Figure 32: Comparison of concentrations of some elements in coals and
cokes
Table 23 shows some examples of the composition of heavy fuel oils is potentially
substituted by “Granulate”.
Table 23: Examples of the composition of heavy fuel oils
Sulphur
Nitrogen
Chloride
Sodium
Nickel
Vanadium
Zinc
Lead
Unit
[UBA Ö 2003]
%
%
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
2,03
0,39
273
12
38
58
2
/
[Ökopol 1997]
min
max
0.6
2.6
20
176
1
5
Even if it must be taken into account that the values are not normalised (e.g. to reduction potential of the different reducing agent) higher values for “Granulate” can
be stated compared with heavy oil (e.g. Chlorine <1.2% in “Granulate” and 0.00020.003% in heavy oil; Lead: <150 ppm in “Granulate” and 1-5 ppm in heavy oil).
It becomes obvious that, depending on the chosen primary raw material, “Granulate”
has in several cases higher concentrations of the respective substance. However, in
78
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
some cases the respective values are lower. Figure 33 shows an exemplary comparison of the lead concentrations in coal and in “Granulate” including a value which is
expected to be achievable but which has not yet been achieved on a large scale.
Lead content in different coal and in
"Granulate"
500
450 Original setting for limits for "Granulate" (based on input
400 specifications)
350
ppm
300
250
200
Lead concentration in "Granulate" (achieved on a large
scale)
150
100
50
Lead concentration in "Granulate" (best value achieved
so far)
Ex
am
Ex p le
am 1
Ex p le
am 2
Ex p le
am 3
Ex p le
am 4
Ex p le
am 5
Ex p le
am 6
Ex p le
am 7
Ex p le
am 8
Ex p l
am e 9
Ex p le
am 1 0
Ex p le
am 1 1
pl
e
12
0
[VW pers. com. July 2003]
Origin
Figure 33: Lead concentration in different coal and in "Granulate"
The density of the “Granulate” is 0.6 kg/l as an average.
4.4.3.2 Reference 3: Input specifications
No European-wide input specifications are available for the “Granulate”. Enterprise
standards for “Granulate” are under discussion. From discussion with potential users
of the “Granulate” target values are derived which are described in Table 24.
79
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Table 24: Target values for “Granulate”
Ash content (weight %)
Lower heating value (MJ/kg)
Humidity (weight %)
C (weight %)
H (weight %)
N (weight %)
Cl (weight %)
S (weight %)
Zn (mg/kg)
Pb (mg/kg)
Cu (mg/kg)
SiO2 (weight %)
MgO (weight %)
CaO (weight %)
TiO2 (weight %)
Fe2O3 (weight %)
Al2O3 (weight %)
[VW 2003 pers. com.]
∅20
∅30
∅1
∅66.4
∅9.3
∅1.2
<1.5
<0.5
<1000
<500
<150
∅6.2
∅5.5
∅2.4
∅1.9
∅1.4
∅0.8
4.4.4 Specific properties, potential impacts and risks
The following table describes the potential impacts and risks as described in the section on ‘Methodology’.
Table 25: Potential impacts and risks for scrap
M1 M2 M3 I
Potential level of uncertainty
Uncertainty about composition
Uncertainty about impurities
Potential environmental impacts
Global warming
Acidification
Eutrophication
Ozone depletion
Photochemical ozone creation
Encroachment on natural areas
Eco-toxicological properties
Human toxicological properties
Potential safety risks
Fire risk
Mechanical risk
Biological risk
0
0
-1
-1
-4
-4
-5
-5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-1
-1
0
0
0
0
0
-5
-4
-4
0
0
0
0
0
-5
-5
-5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
80
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
The figures below depict the results in graphical form.
Figure 34: Potential level of uncertainty for SLF in the recovery chain
Figure 35: Potential environmental impacts for SLF in the recovery chain
81
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
4.4.5 Conclusions
The recovery chain ends with the VW-SiCon process following the separation process
treatment II. With the VW-SiCon process the environment-related waste risks essentially are reduced through the mechanical separation step (Treatment I). The reduction of the uncertainty (as opposed to many other recovery chains) runs extensively
parallel to the environment-related waste characteristics.
In comparison with primary raw material “Granulate” shows in most of the cases
higher values for some parameters (e.g. some heavy metals). However, depending
on the chosen primary raw material (coal, heavy oil) and the performance of the installation the values may be also lower than in the reference material. European normative references for the composition and characteristics of “Granulate” are not
available.
82
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
4.5 Gasification of SLF
4.5.1 Current waste situation
The total amount of shredder residues (shredder light fraction plus shredder heavy
fraction) can be estimated to be between 2.5 and 3 million tonnes.
4.5.2 Assessed recovery chain
(The information present in this chapter is based on personal communication (see
References) if not indicated otherwise.)
Recovery Chain for SLF I
Unit operation 1
M1
SLF
Unit operation 2
Mixing
M4
M3
M2
Unit operation 4
Unit operation 3
M5
Separation
Drying
Separation
Metals
Vapour
Inerts
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Figure 36: Recovery chain for SLF, first part
83
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Recovery Chain for SLF II
Unit operation 5
Unit operation 5
Pelletising
I
M7
M6
M5
Unit operation 6
Gasification
Purification
Slag
Gases
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Figure 37: Recovery chain for SLF, second part
4.5.2.1 M1 Primary waste
The composition of SLF varies widely with the types of input (see case study “Shredder scrap”).
Some exemplary descriptions of the composition of shredder light fraction are indicated below.
84
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Table 26: Composition of shredder light fraction
C
H
S
Cl
Hg
Cd
As
Co
Ni
Sb
Pb
Cr
Cu
Mn
V
Sn
Ba
Zn
PCB
[Rudolph 2000]
Min
Max
19
24.7
2.11
3.42
0.14
0.94
0.11
0.26
mg/kg
mg/kg
M%
M%
M%
M%
M%
M%
M%
M%
M%
M%
M%
M%
0.01
0.03
0.023
0.067
0.04
0.137
0.076
0.23
0.16
0.031
0.368
0.26
2.8
0.02
0.05
0.032
0.115
0.05
0.24
0.121
0.47
0.23
0.052
0.568
0.44
4.99
[DBU 1997]
Average
1.6
0.6
ISAH 1991
min
Max
0.44
1.38
1
50
0.002
0.008
0.065
0.83
1.95
3
78
0.004
0.016
0.28
0.2
0.037
0.99
0.125
1.01
0.36
5.4
0.14
0.003
0.074
0.196
1.27
NRC 1996
Example 1
Example 2
0.003
0.004
0.186
0.09
1.674
0.607
0.009
0.559
0.966
0.41
30-100ppm
The data highlight the broad range of possible compositions of shredder light fraction.
The density of SLF is 0.3 to 0.5 kg/l.
No EN standard exists for the input fraction of a shredder or for the output fractions
SLF and SHF55.
4.5.2.2 Mixing
SLF is mixed with solid municipal waste in the ratio 1:1 [SVZ n.y.].
Beyond this no further information about the composition of the introduced waste
was given. Tables 26-28 indicate pollutant limiting values for solid and liquid wastes
as they are accepted by the SVZ.
55
See case study “Scrap”.
85
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Table 27: Pollutant limiting values for solid waste
Substance
Arsenic
Lead
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Mercury
Zinc
Tin
Sulphur
Cyanide
Oil content
Flame point
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB value to DIN)
Limiting value
< 2.000 mg/kg
< 10.000 mg/kg
< 1.000 mg/kg
< 20.000 mg/kg
< 100.000 mg/kg
< 5.000 mg/kg
< 200 mg/kg
< 100.000 mg/kg
< 10.000 mg/kg
no limit, but content must be declared
< 500 mg/kg
must be declared, value in accordance with specification
must be declared, value in accordance with specification
< 500 mg/kg
Table 28: Pollutant limiting values for waste containing oil/oil phase
Substance
Chlorine and halogens
pH value(in water phase)
Viscosity
Dioxins/furans
Mercury (Hg)
Cadmium (Cd)
Lead (Pb)
Copper (Cu)
Chromium (Cr)
Nickel (Ni)
Arsenic (As)
Tin (Sn)
Zinc (Zn)
Limiting value
up to 6 Ma.-%
at least 5
pumpable
up to 200 µTE/kg
up to 60 mg/kg
up to 500 mg/kg
up to 3,000 mg/kg
up to 1,000 mg/kg
up to3,500 mg/kg
up to 2,000 mg/kg
up to 100 mg/kg
up to 1,000 mg/kg
up to 5,000 mg/kg
Table 29: Pollutant limiting values for watery waste/water phase
Substance
Chlorine and halogens
Cyanide total
pH value
Mercury (Hg)
Cadmium (Cd)
Lead (Pb)
Copper (Cu)
Chromium (Cr)
Nickel (Ni)
Arsenic (As)
Tin (Sn)
Zinc (Zn)
Dioxins/furans
[all tables SVZ 2003a]
Limiting value
up to 6 Ma.-%
up to 20 mg/l
at least 5
up to 0.02 mg/l
up to 5.0 mg/l
up to 5.0 mg/l
up to 10.0 mg/l
up to 2,0 mg/l
up to 1.5 mg/l
up to 2.0 mg/l
up to 5.0 mg/l
up to 5.0 mg/l
up to 200µTE/kg
86
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
4.5.2.3 M2:
The composition of the SLF remains the same as in step M1.
4.5.2.4 Separation
Metals are sorted out of the mixture of SLF and municipal waste.
4.5.2.5 M3
Except for the reduced metal content the composition remain the same as in step
M2.
4.5.2.6 Drying:
The moisture content of the waste is reduced to < 10%.
4.5.2.7 M4:
The general composition of the waste remains the same. The lower moisture content
only leads to a concentration of substances.
4.5.2.8 Separation:
Ferrous and non-ferrous metals are sorted out by magnetic and eddy current separation and minerals are separated.
4.5.2.9 M5:
After the separation step the SLF is now enriched in organic substances mainly thermoplastics and elastomers.
4.5.2.10 Pelletising
The waste is compacted through presses.
4.5.2.11 M6:
Except for the higher density of the SLF, the composition was not changed through
the pelletising step.
4.5.2.12 Gasification
The materials are fed into a British Gas Lurgi Gasifier (BGL) where they are gasified
at 1500°C56.
56
25 bar, using steam and oxygen as gasification agents
87
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
4.5.2.13 M 7: Raw syngas
The composition of the produced gas in the gasifier is indicated in Table 30.
Table 30: Composition of raw syngas from the BGL gasifier
Components
H2
CO
CO2
CH4
N2
Raw syngas57 in vol%
13.8
29.6
19.4
27.6
7.7
O2
CH3CH3 (Ethan)
Other CnHm
[SVZ 2003b]
0.23
0.55
1.12
The organic content of the raw gas is reduced to 30%. Minerals are converted to
slag.
4.5.2.14 Purification
In order to produce methanol, the gas has to fulfil some requirements. The amount
of inert gas (N2) and methane has to be low. The ratio between CO an H2 has to be
between 1 and 2.1 in order to have a material conversion larger than 90% and to
avoid that much of the H2 goes into the purge gas. The H2 amount should be quite
high.
Therefore in a physical acid gas removal process using an organic solvent at subzero
temperatures CO2 and other gas compounds are removed, resulting in a gas called
syngas, whose composition is indicated in Table 31.
4.5.2.15 I: Syngas
The average composition of syngas is indicated in Table 31.
Table 31: Composition of syngas
Components
H2
CO
CO2
CH4
N2
Syngas in vol%
59.1
23.5
2.1
11.6
2.9
O2
CH3CH3 (Ethan)
Other CnHm
[SVZ 2003b]
0.2
0.48
0.12
57
from BGL-Gasifier
88
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
4.5.3 Comparable products
4.5.3.1 Reference 1: Primary product (from which the waste derives)
As SLF contains various components, the only still identifiable primary product would
be plastic. Due to the fact that the plastic is converted into syngas which is itself further treated, a comparison of syngas with plastic would not lead to satisfying results.
4.5.3.2 Reference 2: Input specifications
There are some technical input specification for syngas which need to be fulfilled like
the ratio between H2 and CO. The operation is optimised for the production of
methanol (which is the basis for this case study) in the own installations.
4.5.3.3 Reference 3: Primary raw material
With regard to the numerous possible production processes for which Syngas is used
the only sensible comparison of Syngas from gasification of waste would be to compare it to Syngas made from coke. No comparable data about its composition are
available.
89
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
4.5.4 Specific properties, potential impacts and risks
The following table describes the potential impacts and risks as described in the section on ‘Methodology’.
Table 32: Potential impacts and risks for SLF
M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7
Potential level of uncertainty
Uncertainty about composition
Uncertainty about impurities
Potential environmental impacts
Global warming
Acidification
Eutrophication
Ozone depletion
Photochemical ozone creation
Encroachment on natural areas
Eco-toxicological properties
Human toxicological properties
Potential safety risks
Fire risk
Mechanical.risk
Biological risk
0
-0
0
-0
-2
-5
-2
-5
-2
-5
-4
-5
-5
-5
-5
-5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
I
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
0
0
-0
0
0
0
0
-0
0
0
0
0
-0
0
0
0
0
-0
0
0
0
0
-0
0
0
0
-5
0
0
0
0
-5
-2
0
0
0
-5
-5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The following criteria were not evaluated due to the fact that they evolve quite differently to the criteria evaluated above:
Global warming:
The global warming potential (GWP) rises during gasification as CH4 is generated.
The potential risk then drops but remains at a constant high level within methanol in
comparison to the SLF input.
Ozone depletion
It remained unclear whether CxFyClz compounds evolve during the treatment chain.
Photochemical ozone creation
At the starting point of the recovery chain the only volatile organic compound (VOC)
potentially risk is within the plastic parts of the SLF. This potential risk is actually decreased during the treatment, but rises again with the product output. Therefore this
risk can not be considered to be waste specific.
90
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Human toxicological properties
The toxicological properties are as present in the input as in the output. Nevertheless, it is obvious that the risk through intermediate substances and the desired output would cause direct and immediate harm in contrast with the input fraction.
Fire risk
The fire risk rises throughout the treatment chain and remains at a high level for the
output product Methanol.
The criteria acidification, eutrophication as well as mechanical and biological risk are
marked with an “-” and do not apply for SLF.
The evaluation presented throughout the treatment chain is mainly based on heavy
metals as they represent the significant difference to methanol production from primary raw materials.
91
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
The figures below depict the results in graphical form.
Figure 38: Potential level of uncertainty for SLF in the recovery chain
Figure 39: Potential environmental impacts for SLF in the recovery chain
92
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
4.5.5 Conclusions
The recovery chain of the “Schwarze Pumpe” process ends after conversion. The environment-related waste risks are reduced during the gasification and the conversion
step. The reduction of the uncertainty runs (in distinction to many other recovery
chains) extensively parallel to the environment-related waste characteristics.
The waste-specific risk of SLF mainly consists of the uncertainty concerning impurities and composition.
Some potential environmental risks of SLF are not included in the visualisation because their evolvement is not adaptable to the chosen methodological approach due
to the chemical change of the materials from organic solid substances to non-organic
gases to organic liquids. Some risks are due to the chemical structure of the target
product and can therefore not be evaluated as waste-specific but as product-specific
risks.
93
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
4.6 Mineral waste from construction and demolition of buildings
4.6.1 Current waste situation
Construction demolition waste58 is a priority waste stream and one of the largest
within Europe. Data from the EEA suggests that ~ 338 million tonnes arise annually
in the EU59
[EEA 2002]
Figure 40: Total quantities of construction and demolition waste in selected EEA countries
58
The EEA glossary defines construction and demolition wastes as follows: „Materials resulting from the construction, remodelling, repair or demolition of buildings, bridges, pavements and other structures” (Source US EPA. Decision maker's guide to solid
waste management. Vol. II. http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/dmg2.htm).
59
EEA (2002): Construction and demolition waste for the countries AT, ES (1999), DK, FI, IT, LU, (1997), DE, GR, NL (1996), IE
(1998), SE, NO (1993), F (1992), UK (1990), p.32
94
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Regarding Core C & DW60 different amounts have been indicated (see Table 33).
Table 33: Core C & DW arising as a proportion of apparent consumption of
primary aggregates
Germany
UK
France
Italy
Spain
Netherlands
Belgium
Austria
Portugal
Denmark
Greece
Sweden
Finland
Ireland
Luxembourg
EU-13/15
Apparent consumption of primary aggregates [A]
in m tonnes
547
208
337
269
225
39
47
84
80
45
n/a
81
64
36
n/a
2,063
Estimated Core C [B] as of % of [A]
& DW arisings [B]
in m tonnes
59
28
24
20
13
11
7
5
3
3
2
2
1
1
0
178
in %
10.8
13.5
7.1
7.4
5.8
28.2
14.9
6.0
3.8
6.7
n/a
2.5
1.6
2.8
n/a
8.6
[Symonds 1999]
Summarising information about the C&DW arising and further fate is indicated in Table 34.
60
The Symonds report defines Core CDW as an „essential mix of materials obtained when a building or piece of civil engineering infrastructure is demolished, though [...] under the heading those same materials when they arise as a result of construction. Core C & DW excluded road planing, excavated soil [...], external utility and service connections ( drainage pipes, water ,
gas and electricity) and surface vegetation“ are included. It was stated that the inert (or decontaminated) fraction which is
suitable for crushing and recycling as aggregate will continue to be the largest component within Core C & DW [Symonds
1999].
95
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Table 34: Fate of core C & DW in Europe
Germany
UK
France
Italy
Spain
Netherlands
Belgium
Austria
Portugal
Denmark
Greece
Sweden
Finland
Ireland
Luxembourg
EU-13/15
Core C& DW arising
Recovered
in m tonnes
59
28
24
20
13
11
7
5
3
3
2
2
1
1
0
178
in %
17
45
15
9
<5
81
87
41
<5
81
<5
21
45
<5
n/a
28
Incinerated or
landfilled
in %
83
55
85
91
> 95
19
13
59
>95
19
>95
79
55
>95
n/a
72
[Symonds 1999]
It was indicated by Symonds that core C & DW alone amounts annually to around
180 million tonnes and that only 28% across EU-15 are further used or treated while
the remaining 72% are landfilled.
Furthermore only five Member States (Germany, the UK, France, Italy and Spain)
account for around 80% of the total of core C & DW.
96
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
4.6.2 Assessed recovery chain
This section covers mineral waste from construction and demolition sites which is
processed off-site in recycling centres for use as construction material in road construction.
The recovery chain comprises the unit operations sorting after collection/ classification, pre-sieving, crushing, magnetic separation and sieving. These and ‘I’ the input
at the end of the recovery chain are included in this case study.
Recovery Chain for mineral C & DW
Unit operation 1
Unit operation 4
Unit operation 3
M3
M2
M1
Mineral
C & DW
Unit operation 2
M4
Unit operation 5
O
M5
Sorting/
Classification
Presieving
Crushing
Metal
separation
Sieving
Residues
Dust, fine fraction
Dust
Metals
Large fraction
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Figure 41: Recovery chain for mineral C & DW
4.6.2.1 M1 primary waste
According to the European Waste catalogue mineral wastes resulting from construction and demolition sites are the following:
97
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Table 35: Mineral construction and demolition waste listed in the European
Waste Catalogue
17 00 00 CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTES
(INCLUDING EXCAVATED SOIL FROM CONTAMINATED SITES)
17 02 00 Concrete, bricks, tiles and ceramics
17 02 01 Concrete
17 02 02 Bricks
17 02 03 Tiles and ceramics
17 02 06* Mixtures of, or separate fractions of concrete, bricks, tiles and ceramics containing dangerous substances
17 02 07 Mixtures of concrete, bricks, tiles and ceramics other than those mentioned in 17 01 06
17 03 00 Bituminous mixtures, coal tar and tarred products
17 03 01* Bituminous mixtures containing coal tar
17 03 02 Bituminous mixtures other than those mentioned in 17 03 01
17 03 03* Coal tar and tarred products
17 05 00 Soil (including excavated soil from contaminated sites), stones and dredging
spoil
17 05 03* Soil and stones containing dangerous substances
17 05 04 Soil and stones other than those mentioned in 17 05 03
17 05 05* Dredging spoil containing dangerous substances
17 05 06 Dredging spoil other than those mentioned in 17 05 05
17 05 07* Track ballast containing dangerous substances
17 05 08 Track ballast other than those mentioned in 17 05 07
17 08 00 Gypsum-based construction materials
17 08 01* Gypsum-based construction materials contaminated with dangerous substances
17 08 02 Gypsum-based construction materials other than those mentioned in 17 08 01
17 09 00 Other construction and demolition waste
17 09 01* Construction and demolition wastes containing mercury
17 09 02* Construction and demolition wastes containing PCB (for example PCB-containing sealants,
PCB-containing resin-based floorings, PCB-containing sealed glazing units, PCB-containing
capacitors)
17 09 03* Other construction and demolition wastes (including mixed wastes) containing dangerous
substances
17 09 04 Mixed construction and demolition wastes other than those mentioned in 17 09 01,
17 09 02 and 17 09 03
* Any waste marked with an asterisk is considered as a hazardous waste pursuant to Directive
91/689/EEC on hazardous waste, and subject to the provisions of that Directive unless Article 1(5) of
that Directive applies that Directive applies.
[EUROP 2002]
98
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Other construction and demolition wastes according to the EWC are metals, insulation materials, wood, glass and plastic61.
The nature of today’s construction and demolition waste is directly influenced by the
building techniques and material which were used when the buildings were built
[Symonds 1999]
Characteristic of construction and demolition waste is the heterogeneity of its composition depending on the different construction types, as well as the multitude of
materials, elements and aids used in the construction area [Schultmann, Renz 2000].
4.6.2.2 Hazardous elements in C & DW
C & DW may contain a large number of hazardous substances, although most of the
hazardous substances do not occur within mineral waste. They are usually organic
materials from a large number of applications which can be found within a building
(e.g. paint, oil, wood, sealant).
Pollutant balances of mineral C & DW show that the coarse fraction has a low pollutant content compared to the finer dusty fraction. The total pollutant content can be
significantly reduced through the removal of this fraction [Schultmann, Renz 2000].
Table 36 indicates hazardous substances which can arise within mineral waste from
Construction and demolition sites.
Table 36: Hazardous substances within mineral C & DW
Origin
Relevant pollutant
Natural stone
Gypsum
Asbestos
Concrete additives
Heavy metals
Sulphate, heavy metals
Asbestos
Hydrocarbon solvents
Potentially hazardous properties
Toxic
Toxic
Toxic, carcinogenic
Flammable
[adapted after Schultmann, Renz 2000]
Pollution through tar residues, which would in particular significantly change potential environmental impacts, remaining from sites of construction and demolition of
roads has been left out of the scope of this assessment.
61
It was found that EWC categories are interpreted differently between Member States [Symonds 1999]
99
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Concerning the amount and significance of hazardous substances in mineral C & DW
no reliable or representative quantitative analyses could be made available. Incomplete separation is one reason that hazardous substances remain in the waste
stream. Another reason can be that the substances are bound to the minerals
through adhesion or have been introduced into the mineral matrix during production.
4.6.2.3 Pre-selection
The C & DW can be subject to hand sorting before screening and sieving. After this,
further manual or automated sorting takes place to remove plastics, paper, wood
and other non-ferrous metals.
4.6.2.4 M2:
The potential level of uncertainty and environmental impacts can be reduced significantly through removal, especially of organic residues which also occur in predominately mineral C &DW.
4.6.2.5 Sieving
The fine fraction and dust (e. g. 0-45 mm) are removed.
4.6.2.6 M3:
As dust contains most of the pollutants the removal of it decreases potential risks.
4.6.2.7 Crushing
By using installations like for example impact crusher coarse fraction (e. g. > 45 mm)
is crushed.
4.6.2.8 M4:
Main difference compared to M3 is that dust which was produced through crushing is
no longer present at this stage.
4.6.2.9 Metal separation
The output of the impact crusher passes though separators and ferrous and nonferrous metals are removed.
4.6.2.10 M5:
The amount of ferrous metal has been reduced to the wanted minimum.
100
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
4.6.2.11 Sieving
The material is divided into fractions of 0-45 mm and above 45mm. The > 45 mm
fraction is re-crushed, while the 0-45 mm fraction is sieved into sub-fractions of different diameters. Alternatively, the 0-45 mm fraction can also be passed though an
air classifier, washed, passed through another metal separator and screened though
either a vibrating or free-fall screen.
4.6.2.12 I:
The fractions achieved through the above described processes can be re-combined
into mixes defined by the end user or into brand mixes [Symonds 1999].
4.6.3 Comparable products
4.6.3.1 Reference 1: Product standards of the primary product
Product-related activities at the European level
One of the policy areas of the European Commission DG Enterprise is the construction sector which aims at improving:
” the environment for the competitiveness of the construction and construction
products industries by:
- Accompanying and encouraging actions from industry and Member States, espe-
cially in the field of sustainable construction and actions related to the promotion of Information Technology in the construction process and in the companies’ management, [...]
- Completing the Internal Market for construction products mainly through the im-
plementation of the Construction Products Directive. In the short-term, by supporting the production of standards and European Technical Agreements and,
in the longer term, by integrating dangerous substances and environmental requirements in the harmonised specifications.” 62
62
http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/construction/unit/mission.htm
101
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
The Construction Product Directive
In Article 3 (1) of the Council Directive 89/106/EC or Construction Product Directive
(CPD) the following requirement are laid down:
“The essential requirements applicable to works which may influence the technical characteristics of a product are set out in terms of objectives in Annex I.
One, some or all of these requirements may apply; they shall be satisfied during an economically reasonable working life.
Annex 1 (3) fourth indent specifies
“The construction work must be designed and built in such a way that it will not
be a threat to the hygiene or health of the occupants or neighbours, in particular as a result of any of the following:
[...]
- pollution or poisoning of the water or soil”
No specific environmental limit values are indicated in the Construction Product Directive but refer to the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN).
4.6.3.2 Reference 2: Standards for minerals used for road construction
Road construction can also be carried out using primary raw material such as sand or
gravel.
There is a close technical equivalence between primary raw minerals and secondary
aggregates to be used for construction purposes. The functional equivalence exists if
the primary and secondary construction materials have to meet the same requirements which would need to be harmonised at a European level.
European Committee for Standardisation (CEN)
CEN Technical Committee 154 on recycled aggregates is developing several specifications which permit the use of products derived from recycled materials but most of
them are still under development. No suitable final standard could be made available
for the scope of this case study.
102
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Specifications arising from associations
No association-wide specification and/or standards could be made available from the
European Construction Associations (CPMR, FIEG)63 or recycling organisations (FIR64).
FIR submitted guidelines which have the character of minimal requirements. Regarding the leaching behaviour of recycling products, these guidelines state that “the parameters that must be examined and the limiting values that are to be achieved must
be indicated in accordance with the respective quality categories” [F.i.R. n. y.]. Parameters or limit values are not part of the guidelines.
4.6.3.3 Reference 3: Input definitions for mineral waste used for road
construction
Sorting and sieving processes as described above ameliorate the knowledge of the
composition of the minerals from construction and demolition waste but do not remove its inherent contamination.
Several Member States have taken this fact into account and set out limiting values
for the use recycling aggregates65 with the aim to protect soil and groundwater from
contamination. Due to the lack of data concerning composition and contamination
load within mineral waste arising from construction and demolition waste on an
European level, and due to the lack of a European-wide Standard for C & DW, the
following Section looks at the current situation of three Member States (The Netherlands, Austria and Germany) concerning input requirements for secondary construction and building materials.
4.6.3.4 The Netherlands
The Dutch Building Materials Decree (BMD) came into effect on 1 July 1999.
The basic principle is to acquire insight into the environmental quality of earth and
building materials that contractors or others use [Van der Hoeven, de Iongh 2003].
The decree was especially developed to provide criteria for the protection of soil
(soil/sediment and groundwater) when using material in construction. Attention was
focussed on the release of components from materials due to contact with water.
The use of building materials inside a building is excluded from this decree [Eikel63
64
65
Council of European Producers of materials for construction, European Construction Industry
Federation Internationale du Recyclage
in case of the Netherlands no difference between recycling aggregates and primary raw materials is made
103
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
boom et al 2003]. It covers stony66 materials which are used in a work and outside
[Van der Hoeven, de Iongh 2003].
The decree is applicable in cases where these materials are used in construction
tasks and are in contact with rain, surface water or groundwater (e.g. in embankments, road construction, outside walls of buildings, foundations and roofs) [Eikelboom et al 2003]. The rules of the Building Materials Decree affect primary67 and secondary building materials68 which are both required to meet the same conditions [Van
der Hoeven, de Iongh 2003]. Differences between primary, secondary and waste
materials are only made in waste management acts and regulations69 [Eikelboom et
al 2003].
After these materials have been tested it is decided, in accordance with the BMD,
whether a material can be re-used, treated, or disposed of and how it will be used
and handled further, either as a construction product or as a waste material [Eikelboom et al 2003].
Due to the fact that alternative materials may prove to be technically suitable, the
long-term environmental implications of their use are still uncertain. Several construction applications with alternative materials may perform well in the primary application. However, uncertainty exists about potential environmental impacts from
subsequent cycles of use (recycling, reuse in other applications and “end-of-life”)
[Sloot, Kosson 2003].
Therefore the materials were not only characterised on the basis of the total chemical composition of components in construction materials but also on the release
(leaching) of components, because the release was considered of more importance
regarding soil pollution and long-term impacts than the total chemical composition.
Therefore standard leaching tests have been included into the development of the
BMD [Eikelboom et al 2003], [Sloot, Kosson 2003].
66
According to the definition given in the BMD stony materials consist of a minimum of 10% silicon, calcium or aluminium.
Examples of stony materials are concrete and mixed aggregate bricks, sand/sieve sand, asphalt, asphalt aggregate.
67
Primary building materials are newly manufactured products or newly extracted raw materials [Van der Hoeven, de Iongh
2003]
68
Secondary building materials are materials from demolished constructions or from industry [Van der Hoeven, de Iongh 2003]
69
“The difference between these terms is not based on the difference in quality, but mainly on the question ‘if’ and ‘how’ waste
materials need to be managed and controlled to be sure they are properly handled. After adequate treatment and testing most
of these materials can be finally re-used as normal” [Eikelboom et al 2003].
104
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Classification of Building materials into different categories
The Building Materials Decree draws a principle distinction between 2 categories of
building materials. Besides this main grouping there are another three special categories of building materials (earth, bottom ash from waste incineration plants and
tarry asphalt aggregate) [MinVrom n. y].
The distinction between the categories of building materials is made on the basis of
information on their composition and leaching behaviour [MinVrom n. y].
Category 1 building materials are building materials whose composition and immission values70 for the various substances do not exceed the values of the BMD when
the materials are used in a work. Use of these building materials is permitted without
measures, or additional measures, being required to protect the environment
[MinVrom, n. y].
Category 2 building materials are building materials whose composition values do not
exceed the values of the BMD, but whose immission values would if additional isolation measures were not taken [MinVrom n. y].
Materials that do not fall into Category 1 or Category 2 may not be used as a building material71 [MinVrom n. y].
Composition values72 for clean earth and the composition values and immission standards for building material not being clean earth are indicated in Appendices 1 and 2
of the BMD and are very complex. Therefore only the 7 main contaminant groups
and subgroups are presented below:
70
The immission value depends on two factors: the leaching behaviour of a material and its proposed use. The leaching (emission) is a fixed value; the immission depends each time on the circumstances, e.g. the temperature, degree of contact with
water, presence of isolation measures and the height (thickness of the layer) at which the building material is used. The immission value expresses how much of a substance will in practice actually end up in the soil.
71
Besides the main grouping into categories for building materials and earth, there are two more – temporary – special categories. These have been introduced temporarily to allow the regular reuse of bottom ash from waste incineration plants and of
tarry asphalt aggregate to continue. Bottom ash from waste incineration plants is ash remaining after domestic and industrial
waste has been incinerated. Tarry asphalt aggregate is a building material composed wholly or partially of aggregate obtained
by crushing or milling tarry asphalt. These special categories have been created to ensure that some of the bottom ash from
waste incineration plants and tarry asphalt aggregate satisfies the requirements of the Building Materials Decree. Special regulations for protecting the soil apply to the special categories [MinVrom n. y].
72
composition values on the basis of 15% clay (grain size < 2 im) and 10% humus (mg/kg dry matter, unless otherwise indicated)
105
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
1) Metals (e. g. arsenic, barium)
2) Other inorganic compounds (e. g. bromide, chloride)
3) Aromatic compounds (e. g. benzene, toluene)
4) Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (e.g. naphthalene, phenanthrene)
5) Chlorinated hydrocarbons, subdivided into
a) (volatile) hydrocarbons
b) chlorobenzenes
c) chlorophenols
d) polychlorobiphenyls (PCBs)
e) remaining chlorinated hydrocarbons
6) Pesticides, subdivided into
a) Organocholoro-pesticides
b) Organophor-pesticides
c) Organitin pesticides73
d) Chlorophenoxy acetic acid herbicides
e) Aromatic chloroamines
f) Remaining pesticides
7) Remaining organic compounds (e. g. acrylonitrile, benzidine)
[Building Material Decree 1999]
Control measures
The category into which a building material falls determines what is or is not permitted or required with this building material and what conditions must be complied
with for its use. The category also determines the procedural requirements the
owner or principal has to comply with. These include reporting the use of building
materials [MinVrom n. y.].
73
subgroup c to f does not apply for the composition values and immission standards
106
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Laboratory and sample takers have to get an accreditation, based on a specially developed accreditation program. Only these may perform tests for industry or government institutions [Eikelboom et al 2003].
4.6.3.5 Austria
The Austrian Government has developed, in close collaboration with the Austrian
Building Construction Material Association, a standard for recycling building and construction materials [BRV 2003]. It will be presented officially in November 2003.
This standard affects building/construction materials which have already been
treated. They are classified into different categories according to the standards.
Table 37: Austrian standard for recycling of building and construction materials
Parameter
Eluant
pH-Value
Electric conductivity
Chrometotal
Cu
Ammonia-N
Nitrite-N
Sulphate-SO4
Sum HC
3 16 PAK (EPA)
*
pH-Value between
Unit
mS/m
mg/kg dm
mg/kg dm
mg/kg dm
mg/kg dm
mg/kg dm
mg/kg dm
mg/kg dm
11 and 12.5 the limit
Class A+
Class A
Class B
7.5-12.5
150*
7.5-12.5
150*
7.5-12.5
150*
0.3
0.5
1
0.5
1,500
1
4
value for the electric
0.5
0.5
1
2
4
8
1
2
2,500
3,500
3
5
7
10
conductivity is 200 mS/m
[BRV 2003]
Despite these limiting values every class has also to fulfil other limits depending on
the desired application and the type of earth to which the materials are to be applied.
Furthermore the application is partly restricted in water protection areas.
Control measures
The responsible institutions for controls, as well as the possibilities and requirements
for accreditation for a C& DW recycling company are also determined in this standard.
107
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
4.6.3.6 Germany
The German Federal State Working Group Waste (LAGA) has elaborated technical
rules for the valuation of mineral residue and waste, especially building waste74. In
addition to the necessary parameters to be examined the technical rules also contain
standardised examination methods.
Table 38: German technical rules for the valuation of mineral residue and
waste, especially building waste
Categories
Possible applications
Substances
pH value
Electrical conductivity
Chloride
Sulphate
As
Pb
Cd
Chrome (total)
Cu
Ni
Hg
Zn
HC (aliphatics)
PAK
PCP
Phenol index
[LAGA76]
Z0
Non-restricted installation
Z1
Restricted installation
Z2
Restricted installation with defined
technical safety measures
Eluant [F/l]
dm [mg/kg]
dm
[mg/kg]
-
Eluant
[F/l]
7.0-12.5
500 [FS/cm]
dm [mg/kg]
Eluant [F/l]
-
7.0-12.5
1500 [FS/cm]
-
7.0-12.5
3000 [FS/cm]
20
100
0.6
50
10000
50000
10
20
2
15
-
20000
150000
10
40
2
30
-
150000
600000
50
100
5
100
40
40
0.3
120
100
50
40
0.2
100
-
300
50
50
0.2
100
-
1000
200
100
2
400
-
1
0.02
-
< 10
5(2075)
0.1
-
10
75 (100)
1
-
100
Decisive for the above references values is the protected groundwater. Additionally,
the effects on the natural ground function from the recycling materials inserted
should be minimised. This is why values for eluant and solid materials have been
developed [Schultmann, Renz 2000].
The German technical terms of delivery for minerals in road construction (FGSV
2000) set out rules, maximum values and acceptable deviations for different classes
74
Laga definition of demolition and construction waste:
Mineral substances from construction/demolition with foreign non-mineral components # 5 Vol.-%..Further separation of these
substances is not reasonable due to their small size.
75
76
In particular cases a deviation until value in bracket is possible
The categories Z2-Z4 have not been displayed because if materials have those limit values they can only be landfilled.
108
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
of recycling construction materials77 in order to protect the groundwater (see Table
39).
Table 39: Maximum values and the acceptable deviation for different
classes of recycling construction materials
Substances
pH value
Electrical conductivity
SO4
Cl
As
Cd
Chrome (total)
Cu
Hg
Ni
Pb
Zn
PAK (EPA)
PAK (EPA)
EOX
[FGSV 2000]
Class 1
Eluant [mg/l]
Class 2
Eluant [mg/l]
Class 3
Eluant [mg/l]
7.0-12.5
150 [mS/cm]
7.0-12.5
250 [mS/cm]
7.0-12.5
300 [mS/cm]
150
20
0.01
0.002
0.03
0.05
0.0002
0.05
0.04
0.1
0.005
Dry matter
mg/kg
20
3
300
40
0.04
0.005
0.075
0.15
0.001
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.008
Dry matter
mg/kg
50
5
600
150
0.05
0.005
0.1
0.2
0.002
0.1
0.1
0.4
Dry matter
mg/kg
100
10
Allowed deviation
in %
5
5
10
20
20
20
10
10
20
20
10
50
-
According to the regulations in the documents described above cross-contamination
and general mixing of materials have to be avoided. Still demolition often results in a
mixture of materials [Schultmann, Renz 2000].
77
Recycled construction material is defined as rock particles which have been used before as natural or artificial mineral construction materials in bound or unbound applications. Natural rock and industrial “by-products” such as, for example, slag can
be mixed with recycling construction materials but the mixing proportion has to be indicated.
109
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
4.6.4 Specific properties, potential impacts and risks
The following table describes the potential impacts and risks as described in the section on ‘Methodology’.
Table 40: Potential impacts and risks for mineral C&DW
M1 M2 M3 M4 M5
I
Potential level of uncertainty
Uncertainty about composition
0
-2
-4
-4
-5
-5
Uncertainty about impurities
0
-3
-4
-4
-5
-5
Global warming
0
0
0
0
0
0
Acidification
-
-
-
-
-
-
Eutrophication
-
-
-
-
-
-
Ozone depletion
-
-
-
-
-
-
Photochemical ozone creation
-
-
-
-
-
-
Encroachment on natural areas
0
-1
-2
-5
-5
-5
Eco-toxicological properties
0
-1
-3
-3
-4
-5
Human toxicological properties
-
-
-
-
-
-
Fire risk
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mechanical risk
0
0
0
0
0
0
Biological risk
-
-
-
-
-
-
Potential environmental impacts
Potential safety risks
Global warming, fire risk and mechanical risks are not included in the graphs even
though they are reduced through the treatment process because their potential is
already very low at the beginning and they do not represent crucial points for this
waste stream.
Human toxicological properties would only apply in the case where mineral waste
from demolition and construction of roads would be assessed.
110
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
The criteria acidification, eutrophication, ozone depletion, photochemical ozone creation and biological risk do not applicable for this waste stream. The figures below
depict the results in graphical form.
Figure 42: Potential level of uncertainty for mineral C & DW in the recovery
chain
Figure 43: Potential environmental impacts for mineral C & DW in the recovery chain
111
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
4.6.5 Conclusions
The treatment chain consists of five unit operations. As one is concerned with a succession of very similar separation steps the uncertainty changes and the environment-related waste characteristics change largely synchronously, in steps over the
complete treatment chain.
Mineral waste from construction and demolition sites is quite a unique material as
some of the contamination is already present within the product (see Section
4.6.2.2) and becomes relevant for the use as a construction material.
No European input standards exist for mineral waste used for road construction. Only
national governments have taken measures and developed limiting values for mineral
aggregates. The requirements set out by the national governments show the different kinds of substances which are regulated as substances to be used for construction.
Even though the waste-specific risk of mineral waste from construction and demolition sites is minimised throughout the treatment a comparison at a European level
cannot be established.
112
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
4.7 Electric arc furnace slag from thermal processes for road construction
4.7.1 Current waste situation78
Around 45.5 million tonnes of different types of slag are produced annually in Europe
[Euroslag 2003]79. With ~ 39% of this amount road construction has the largest application of slag in Europe (see Figure 44).
In total 16.8 million tonnes of steel slag have been produced within the EU in 2000.
Interim storage
3%
Internal use
5%
Others
6%
Final deposit
9%
Blast Furnace Slag
25%
Road
Construction
39%
Steel Slag
14%
Cement production
38%
[Euroslag 1999]
Figure 44: Fate of slag within selected EU states80 and the proportion of
slag types used for road construction
78
Euroslag objects to the classification of slag as waste.
A new inquiry is currently being carried out by Euroslag. Due to slight data inconsistencies concerning the production of slag
and the use of slag within the EU, Figure 44 is based on 46.2 million tonnes slag [Euroslag, pers. comm] and refers to the use
of slag.
80
AU, BE, Ger, Esp, F, Fin, I, Lux, NL, UK, S
79
113
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
4.7.2 Assessed recovery chain
This section covers electric arc furnace slag which is minimised in size and used as
construction material in road construction.
The recovery chain comprises the unit operations crushing/sieving, mixing and ‘I’ the
input at the end of the recovery chain.
4.7.2.1 M1: Waste description
Steel slag is produced from the further refining of iron in Basic Oxygen Furnaces
(LDS/BOF Slag) or from melting recycled scrap in electric arc furnaces (EAF slag).
From the 16.9 mill. tonnes of steel slag produced in Europe in 2000, 59% account for
BOF slag, 28% for EAF slag and 13% for secondary steel [Euroslag pers. comm.
2003]. A remarkably high amount of EAF slag is either landfilled or stored as Figure
45 shows.
5%
10%
23%
62%
[BREF 2000]
Landfilled/stored
external use
sold to another body
in plant use
Figure 45: Fate of EAF slag in the EU81
Examples of the composition of EAF slag are indicated in Table 41.
81
Data based on 57 plants producing 2.7 million t/a of EAF slag
114
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Table 41: Examples of the composition of EAF slag
Component (wt. %)
Fetotal
CaO
CaOfree
SiO2
Al2O3
MgO
MnO
Cr2O3
TiO2
P2O5
Na2O
K2O
V2O5
ZnO
CuO
NiO
S
C
* data from only one plant
EAF slag82 [Bref 2000]
10-32
25-45
≤4
10-18
3-8
4-13
4-12
1-2
0.3
0.01-0.6
0.46*
0.11*
0.11-0.25
0.02*
0.03*
0.01-0.4
0.02*
0.33*
EAF slag [FGSV 2000]
20-30
24-36
<1
10-18
4-9
3-7
4-8
1-3
0.5-1
-
Table 42: Average concentration of eluants from EAF slag83
Substance in [mg/l]
pH-Value [-]
Electric conductivity [mS/m]
SO4
Cl
F
CNtotal (cyanide)
As
Cd
Crtotal
CrVI
Cu
Hg
Mo
Ni
Pb
V
Zn
82
83
EAF slag
Average concentration in eluant
11.5
80
15
1
0.5
< 0.01
0.001
<0.0001
< 0.03
0.02
< 0.001
< 0.0005
0.01
< 0.002
0.002
0.06
0.01
from the production of low alloyed steel
after the modified DEV-S4-method (grain size 8/11 mm) [FGSV 1999].
115
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Organic substances are not present due to the high temperatures of the slag (~
1600°C).
Recovery chain for slag
Unit operation 1
I
M2
M1
Slag
Unit operation 2
Crushing/
sieving
mixing
Residues
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Figure 46: Assessed recovery chain for EAF slag
4.7.2.2 Crushing/sieving
The slag is crushed and sieved in order to standardise the circumference.
4.7.2.3 M2:
The chemical composition of the slag does differ slightly from the M1 step due to the
fact that about 10% of metallic residues are sorted out during crushing and sieving84.
4.7.2.4 Mixing
The crushed slag can be mixed with other mineral substances in order to produce,
for example, gravel.
4.7.2.5 I:
The composition of the slag has not changed compared to the M1 step.
84
According to Euroslag the removal of metals is not of importance concerning the composition and or the environmental risks.
But as no analyses could be provided, this step has been integrated into the assessment of slag.
116
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
4.7.3 Comparable products
4.7.3.1 Reference 1: Primary product
The products from which the waste arises are steel products used as input for electric arc furnaces. But due to the fact that slag from steel production and steel are
used in different areas, a comparison would not lead to appropriate results.
4.7.3.2 Reference 2: Standards for minerals used for road construction
Downsized EAF slag is used as a final product for construction purposes. The comparable primary product is natural construction material such as sand or gravel which
has, in some cases, a lower concentration of hazardous substances and in some
cases a higher concentration.
4.7.3.3 Reference 3: Input definitions for mineral waste used for road
construction
Sorting and sieving processes, as described above, ameliorate the knowledge of the
composition of the minerals from construction and demolition waste but do not remove the inherent contamination.
The composition and contamination load within mineral waste arising from construction and demolition waste on a European level cannot be described in a way that it
comprises the whole variety of compositions covered by the waste code.
Several Member States have taken this fact into account and have set out national
limiting values for the use of recycling aggregates85 with the aim of protecting soil
and groundwater from contamination. EN 13043 and EN 13242 contain requirements
for slag but do not take into account environmental issues.
85
in the case of the Netherlands no difference between recycling aggregates and primary raw materials is made
117
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
4.7.4 Specific properties, potential impacts and risks
The following table describes the potential impacts and risks as described in the section about ‘Methodology’.
Figure 47: Potential impacts and risks for mineral C&DW
M1 M2
I
Potential level of uncertainty
Uncertainty about composition
0
-5
-5
Uncertainty about impurities
0
-5
-5
Global warming
0
0
0
Acidification
0
0
0
Eutrophication
0
0
0
Ozone depletion
0
0
0
Photochemical ozone creation
0
0
0
Encroachment on natural areas
0
0
0
Eco-toxicological properties
0
-5
-5
Human toxicological properties
0
0
0
Fire risk
0
0
0
Mechanical risk
0
0
0
Biological risk
0
0
0
Potential environmental impacts
Potential safety risks
The figures below depict the results in graphical form.
118
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Figure 48: Potential level of uncertainty of slag in the recovery chain
Figure 49: Potential environmental impacts of slag in the recovery chain
119
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
4.7.5 Conclusions
The recovery chain consists of two unit operations only. An pre-selection in form of
an isolated unit operation does not take place. The material characteristics are influenced via additional materials already before the creation of the wastes.
Only the separation of disruptive substances with the screening step which follows
comminution (“crushing”) of the slag, leads to the change of the waste-specific characteristics.
Thus the minimum is achieved already before the last treatment stage where the
material is mixed.
Possible contamination (e.g. heavy metals) is not minimised and also remains when
the slag has actually been used as a construction material.
So far the use of EAF slag and possible restrictions are regulated nationally in the
context of national water and soil protection policy but no EN Standard including environmental parameters or a similar reference is available.
120
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
4.8 Filter dust from electric arc furnaces in zinc production
4.8.1 Current waste situation
In Western Europe approximately 0.75 Mill. [BUS 2003] to 1.2 Mill. [Initiative Zink
2003] tonnes of filter dust waste per year results from electric arc furnaces (EAF).
This figure corresponds with the European steel production of 65 Mill. tonnes, assuming that the production of one tonne of carbon/low alloyed steel leads to the
production of 10-15 kg filter dust [UBA-AU 1998, EUROFER 2003], which results at
present in about 0.65-0.98 Mill. tonnes of EAF filter dust per year.86
The Waelz pyrometallurgical process is the most used process for recovery of zinc
from filter dust from electric arc furnaces that produce carbon and low alloyed steel.
For zinc recycling only dust from carbon and low alloyed steel production can be
used; filter dust from stainless steel production has low zinc content and thus will not
be processed in zinc production.
The four plants of B.U.S Steel Services GmbH87 and the plant of ASER88 have a capacity of 550,000 tonnes of filter dust corresponding to 75% of the EU waste amount.
In 1997 in the European Union the Waelz process was the fate for 45% of the total
amount of filter dust from electric arc furnaces; 55% was disposed of on landfills,
used for the filling of mines or stored for future usage [Hoffmann 1997].
The following table shows exemplary figures describing the situation in 1997 in
Western Europe.
86
The BAT Reference Document on the Production of Iron and Steel mentions 14-20 kg of filter dust per ton of steel production
equivalent to 0.91-1.30 Mio. tonnes of filter dust [I&S BREF 2001]. The difference can be explained with an increasing in-plant
recycling of filter dust in electric arc furnaces.
87
AGOR AG: B.U.S Zinkrecycling GmbH Freiberg/Germany (220,000 t), B.U.S Metall GmbH Duisburg/Germany (60,000 t), Pontenossa S.p.A Milan/Italy (90,000 t), RECYTECH S.A. Fouquière-les-Lens/France (80,000 t), “producing 150,000 tonnes of Waelz
oxide per year” [AGOR 2003].
88
Befesa S.A.: Compañía Industrial Asúa-Erandio, S.A. Bilbao/Spain (105,000 t) [Befesa 2003].
121
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Table 43: Fate of EAF filter dust in the European Union in 1997
State(s)
Total amount
of dust [t/a]
Austria and Switzerland
Benelux
Denmark
France
Germany
Italy
Scandinavia
Spain and Portugal
UK
Total
30,000
Amount of dust processed in the Waelz
process [t/a]
25,000
Percentage
Fate of the residual
amount of dust
83%
landfill
landfill
landfill
landfill, filling of mines
landfill and recycling in a
plant in Enirisorse
landfill and storage for
recycling in the future
landfill
landfill
65,000
12,000
90,000
150,000
180,000
55,000
30,000
105,000
80,000
85%
100%
33%
70%
44%
30,000
10,000
33%
120,000
65,000
730,000
25,000
0
330,000
20%
0%
45%
[Hoffmann 1997]
The output of the Waelz process, Waelz oxide can be used as a raw material for pyrometallurgical zinc production and – if the zinc share is high enough and chlorine
portion low enough – also for electrolytic zinc production. The International Zinc Association estimates that of all zinc recycling sources about 6% comes from filter dust
of electric arc furnaces (equivalent to 174,000 tonnes).
Zinc from EAF dust is expected to increase by more than 50% over the coming ten
years because more and more galvanised steel is recovered [IZA 2003].
Brass Scrap 42%
Zinc Sheet Semis 27%
27%
42%
Die Casting Scrap 16%
Galvanizing Residues 6%
Steel Industry Filter Dust 6%
16%
1% 2% 6%
6%
Chemical Industry 2%
Other 1%
[IZA 2003]
Figure 50: Sources of zinc recycling
122
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
The zinc content of EAF filter dust originates mainly from zinc coatings on steel
products. When melted in electric arc furnaces the zinc evaporates and is captured
by dust filters.
4.8.2 Assessed recovery chain
This section covers filter dust from electric arc furnaces of carbon steel and low alloyed steel production which is processed to become “Waelz oxide” which should
have the required specifications for its usage in zinc production.
The recovery chain comprises the unit operation “pre-selection” of filter dust, processing in the “Waelz” and the “leaching” process and finally the “zinc production” in
pyrometallurgical or electrolytic zinc plants.
The case study includes ‘M1-M6’ materials within the recovery chain and ‘I’ standing
for the input at the end of the recovery chain.
Recovery Chain for EAF Dust
Waelz process
Unit operation 1
Filter
dust
M1
Preselection
Unit operation 2
M2
Pelletising
Residue
M3
Unit operation 4
Unit operation 3
Evaporation
M4
Leaching
Residue
Unit operation 5
M5
Drying
O
Residue
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Figure 51: Assessed recovery chain for EAF filter dust
4.8.2.1 Collection system
In most cases the dust treatment at EAF plants is performed by bag filters or electrostatic precipitators. Transport of filter dust from electric arc furnaces is usually done
by silo trucks or rail cars.
123
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
4.8.2.2 M1 - Primary waste
Electric arc furnace filter dust has the code 10 02 07 in the European Waste Catalogue and is defined as “Solid waste from gas treatment of electrical arc furnaces
containing dangerous substances” under the category “Inorganic Wastes from Thermal Processes”.
Filter dust from electric arc furnaces has varying zinc composition which depends on
the type of scrap that was used as input to the electric arc furnace. According to the
output streams of different Waelz industries a mean portion of about 21 % zinc in
the filter dust can be assumed for recent years.89 Today an average of 27% of zinc in
filter dust is stated [Ruhr-Zink 2003].
For economic reasons electric arc furnaces try to raise the concentration of zinc in
the filter dust by technical means. This includes increasing the amount of zincbearing scrap charged to the furnace and returning filter dust to the furnace, to enrich the zinc content of the filter dust up to 18-35% [IZA 1999]. Recycling of filter
dust in order to achieve a zinc enrichment of at least 30% (depending on local circumstances) is considered as Best Available Technology to minimise solid waste and
by-products [I&S BREF 2001].
The following table shows ranges of the chemical composition of EAF filter dust. The
composition depends on the type of scrap used as input material of the electric arc
furnace.
89
In 14.5 years ASER recycled 1,240,000 tonnes of dust, containing more than 270,000 tonnes of zinc [Geppert 2002]. B.U.S.
Duisburg recycled 60,000 tonnes of EAF dust containing 12,000 tonnes of zinc; B.U.S. Freiberg recycled 40,000 tonnes of dust
containing 9,000 tonnes of zinc [Rentz 1999]
124
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Table 44: Chemical composition of EAF filter dust from the production of
carbon steel and low alloyed steel
Zn
Fetot
Cr2O3
Pb
Cd
Cu
Ni
V
Co
As
Hg
[weight-%]
10 – 35
25 - 50
0.2 – 1
0.8 – 6
0.02 – 0.1
0.15 – 0.4
0.02 – 0.04
0.02 – 0.05
0.001 – 0.002
0.003 – 0.08
0.0001 – 0.001
SiO2
CaO
Al2O3
MgO
P2O5
MnO
Na2O
K2O
Cl
F
S
C
[weight-%]
1.5 – 5
4 – 15
0.3 – 0.7
1 – 5
0.2 – 0.6
2.5 – 5.5
1.5 – 1.9
1.2 – 1.5
1.5 – 4
0.02 – 0.9
0.5 – 1
0.5 – 2
[I&S BREF 1999]
The table above shows that filter dust contains relatively high concentrations of a
large number of heavy metals, especially lead, cadmium and chromium. Organohalogen impurities in the scrap also lead to varying concentrations of organic substances such as benzopyrene, dioxins and furans in emissions from electric arc furnaces and thus will be found in the filter dust as well [NFM BREF 2001]. If electric
arc furnaces are not optimised, PCDD/PCDF of 220-17,800 ng TE/kg have been
found [Ökopol 1991].
The following table shows exemplary measurement data of PCDD/PCDF [see also
Tysklind 1989; Theobald 1995].
Table 45: Exemplary dioxin and furan data from electric arc furnaces
#
1
2
3
4
5
Filter dust [ng TE/Nm3]
0.041
0.016
0.032
0.012
0.228
Cleaned gas [ng TE/Nm3]
0.103
0.015
0.021
0.022
0.735
Sum [ng TE/Nm3]
0.144
0.032
0.053
0.034
0.962
[Weiss/Karcher 1996]
4.8.2.3 Pre-selection
During pre-selection those wastes are separated which are not suitable for economic
processing and/or which hinder the achievement of the required output quality. After
the first analysis at the steelworks’ plant, a chemical analysis and optical inspection is
carried out to select suitable dust for the Waelz process.
125
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
The Waelz process is optimised for EAF filter dust from carbon steel or low alloyed
steel production containing more than 18% zinc [BUS 2003], but processing of filter
dust containing 12% zinc can also be found [Initiative 2003].
For accounting reasons in most cases a complete analysis of “M1” is realised during
the pre-selection.
4.8.2.4 M2 - Waelz process input
The input material for the Waelz process comprises the whole variety of substances
described above in Table 44. If the collected fraction “M1” has contained low zinc
portions, after pre-selection the fraction “M2” contains a zinc portion of at least 12%.
A more precise description of the composition of “M2” is not possible because of the
variability of the input material described above. The level of uncertainty about the
composition is decreased and the knowledge about impurities increased. There was
no treatment and thus no change of the physical-chemical composition of the material that enters the recovery chain.
The Waelz process consists of a slightly sloped rotary kiln of 30 to 60 metres length
and a free diameter of 3 to 4 metres. It is designed to separate zinc from the rest of
the filter dust material by reducing it to elemental zinc which is volatile and thus can
be channelled out of the dust and sampled as zinc oxide in the dust filters. The two
unit operations, pelletising and evaporation, describe the main feature of the Waelz
process
4.8.2.5 Pelletising
Filter dust, coke and flux are mixed and pelletised.
In this step only the density of the filter dust is changed, the chemical properties of
the filter dust is not changed, but additional characteristics are included: Coke is
added for energy supply and as reducing agent, flux for the creation of an inert
sludge.
4.8.2.6 Evaporation
The pellets are fed via a charging sluice at the upper end of the rotary kiln. The rotation and the slope lead to an overlaid translational and rotational movement of the
charge. Air as combustion gas is injected at the exit opening of the furnace in a
counter-current direction to the charge.
126
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
The material is processed at temperatures around 1,200°C during four to six hours
(depending on inclination, length and rotation of the kiln). At this temperature the
volatile heavy metal content of the filter dust, such as zinc and lead is evaporated
into the gas atmosphere together with chlorides and alkalis.
As the kiln is processed with a surplus of air, the metal vapours are re-oxidised,
evacuated from the kiln and separated in the abatement system (settling chamber,
cooling with water, electrostatic precipitator or air cooling followed by a fabric filter).
4.8.2.7 M4 - Waelz process output
The Waelz process generates the so-called Waelz oxide.
The composition of Waelz oxide varies widely depending on the material fed into the
Waelz process; generally it contains about 55% zinc and about 11% lead [UBA-AU
1998].
Most frequent dangerous substances contained in Waelz oxide are lead compounds
(up to 20%), cadmium compounds (up to 0,16%) and arsenic compounds (up to
0,16%) [Harz-Metall 2003].
The following table shows a typical composition.
Table 46: Typical composition of Waelz oxide
Zn
Fe
S
MgO
SiO2
Pb
Cu
Al2O3
CaO
Cl
F
As
C
Cd
Composition
50 - 60%
1.5 - 3%
0.5 - 2%
0.2 - 0.3%
0.5 - 1%
4 - 11%
0.2 - 0.3%
0.3 - 0.5%
0.5 - 1%
4 - 8%
0.1 - 0.5%
< 0.01%
1 - 4%
0.08 - 0.14%
Particle size
[mm]
[%]
>1
1 - 0.2
0.2 - 0.1
0.1 - 0.075
0.075 - 0.4
0.04 - 0.02
< 0.02
0%
0.08 %
0.1 %
0.15 - 0.2 %
47 - 50 %
47 - 50 %
2-5%
Density
4.7 - 4.9 g/cm³
Colour
green-yellow
[Harz Products 2003, NFM BREF 2001, UBA-AU 1998]
According to [Krüger 2001] Waelz oxide is characterised by PCDD/F contents below
2°µg TE/t.
127
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
4.8.2.8 Leaching
As particularly high chloride and fluoride content decreases the Waelz oxide quality, a
double leaching process is often carried out directly after the rotary kiln using sodium
carbonate or sulphuric acid in the first stage and water in the second stage to remove chloride, fluoride, sodium, potassium and sulphur from the Waelz oxide.
Leaching is carried out in autoclaves with temperatures of 120°-140°C [Ruhr-Zink
2003].
4.8.2.9 M5 - Leaching output
The output of the leaching operation is a sludge containing zinc oxide diluted with
liquids which contain chloride and fluoride in a water soluble form. The waste specific
characteristics have not changed.
4.8.2.10
Drying
After leaching the sludge is dried in a filter press to separate the purified Waelz oxide
(mainly consisting of zinc oxide) from the liquid which contains diluted halogens.
4.8.2.11
I - Drying output
If the Waelz process is combined with a two–stage leaching and drying operation the
zinc content in the output of the recovery process can be increased up to 68% [BUS
2003]. Chloride, fluoride, sodium, potassium and sulphur is reduced. The lead content remains stable or is even increased. A higher zinc output than 70% is difficult to
achieve because, in addition to zinc oxide, the Waelz process generates a ferrous
zinc which remains in the slag that contains about 13% zinc [Chia-Cheng 2002].
The table shows the difference between “M4” and “M5” caused by the leaching.
Table 47: Effect of leaching of Waelz oxide
Component
unwashed
washed
Zn
55-60%
60-68%
Pb
7-10%
8-11%
S
0.5-1%
<0.15%
F
0.2-0.5%
<0.15%
Cl
4-8%
<0.15%
K2O
1-3%
<0.15%
[NFM BREF 2001]
128
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
4.8.3 Comparable products
4.8.3.1 Reference 1: Primary product zinc on galvanised steel
Zinc coated steel products as used as input material for electric arc furnaces (EAF)
are set as Reference 1 for this case study. The output of the recovery chain is Zinc
which may be used again for galvanising.
The raw material used for the production of zinc is zinc concentrate, which is the result of a flotation process after the ore has been mined and milled. The zinc ore contains 1-15% zinc whereas the zinc concentrate typically contains 55% zinc as an average, 6.5% iron and 32% sulphur together with other elements at a low levels such
as 2% lead, 0.2% copper, 0.2% cadmium [IZA 2003, Krüger 2001].
Number of mines
Head Grade Zn [%]
25
20
15
10
5
0
<1
1-3
3-5
5-7
7-9
9-11
11-13
13-15
>15
[IZA 2003]
Figure 52: Ore grades of different zinc mines
Zinc is produced for the market in various qualities. The highest quality of primary
zinc is Special High Grade (SHG) or “Z1”, with 99.995% zinc, while the lowest primary zinc quality is Good Ordinary Brand (GOB) or “Z5” which is 98% pure.
Lower grades, mainly produced by recycling scrap and used products, have to contain 98.5% to be named “ZS1” and zinc output with at least 97.75% is called “ZS3”.
The table shows different zinc qualities with permitted impurities.
129
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Table 48: EN Standard 1179 for zinc production
Grade
Class
Colour
code
Z1
white
99.995
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.005
Z2
yellow
99.99
0.005
0.005
0.003
0.001
0.001
-
0.001
Z3
green
99.95
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.001
0.001
-
0.005
Z4
blue
99.5
0.45
0.01
0.05
-
-
-
0.05
Z5
black
98.5
1.4
0.01
0.05
-
-
-
1.5
Grade
Class
Remarks
ZS1
made
mainly of
scrap and
use products
ZS2
ZS3
ZS3
mainly
from Zn
containing
residues,
ashes
Nomi1
2*
3
4
5
6
Total of 1
nal Zinc Pb max. Cd max. Fe max. Sn max. Cu max. Al max. to 6 max
Nomi1
2*
3
4
5
6
Total of 1
nal Zinc Pb max. Cd max. Fe max. Sn max. Cu max. Al max. to 6 max
98,5
1.4
0.05
0.05
*)
-
-
1.5 **)
98.0
1.6
0.07
0.12
*)
-
-
2.0 **)
97.75
1.7
0.09
0.17
-
-
-
2.25
98.5
1.3
0.02
0.05
-
-
-
1.5
* For a period of five years after the date of ratification of this standard the max. Cd contents of
grades Z3, Z4 and Z5 shall be 0.020, 0.050 and 0.050 respectively.
*) Sn max 0.3% for brass making, 0.7% for galvanising. When present at these levels
the actual Zn content may be lower than the nominal Zn content.
**) Excluding Sn when present at the level given in *)
[NFM BREF 2001]
There is no Standard defined for the input material of pyrometallurgical or electrolytic zinc production processes but plant-by-plant criteria for the input material according to the desired product quality.
The most important parameter for electrolytic zinc production is the chloride content
of the Waelz oxide. Chloride attacks the anode which is made of lead. Chlorine gases
can be formed and thus be a hazard to worker’s health. Thus a chlorine level of 1030 mg/kg is the maximum share for the production of high quality zinc. Natural zinc
concentrates have a chlorine content of 5-10 mg/kg; Waelz oxide after leaching less
than 1,000 mg/kg.
4.8.3.2 Reference 2: zinc concentrates for zinc production
Waelz oxide is used as an input for the production of Zinc in Zinc plants. It substitutes zinc ore respectively zinc ore concentrates which are set as Reference 2.
130
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
There is no EN Standard or similar binding regulations at a European level for zinc
bearing input materials at zinc plants.
Zinc ores are found in association with FeS and PbS, copper, gold, silver and other
metals.
With regard to the heavy metal content a similarity between EAF dust and zinc concentrates can be stated at a qualitative level. This similarity is not changed principally
along the recovery chain until the waste is processed in the leaching unit operation.
Hazardous organic compounds are not present in Reference 2.
Zinc concentrates may contain some halogens but in significantly lower concentrations than the output of the Waelz process or the unit operation “leaching”90.
4.8.3.3 Reference 3: input definitions of zinc production
Reference 3 is defined as input definitions for the zinc production.
Input definitions at a general (European) level do not cover most of the parameters
discussed in this case study. Plant-specific requirements may include those parameters not the least determined by technological requirements and the desired output
quality of the zinc (e.g. chlorine below 0.1%).
4.8.4 Specific properties, potential impacts and risks
The following table describes the potential impacts and risks as described in the section about ‘Methodology’.
90
Leaching output has chlorine contents below 0.1% (< 1 g/kg), the Reference 2 zinc concentrate contains 5-10 mg/kg [Asturiana 2003]
131
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Table 49: Potential impacts and risks for recovered EAF filter dust
M1 M2 M3 M4 M5
I
Potential level of uncertainty
Uncertainty about composition
0
-3
-4
-4
-5
-5
Uncertainty about impurities
0
0
0
0
-5
-5
Global warming
0
0
0
0
0
0
Acidification
0
-2
-2
-2
-5
-5
Eutrophication
0
-2
-2
-2
-5
-5
Ozone depletion
0
0
0
0
0
0
Photochemical ozone creation
0
0
0
0
0
0
Encroachment on natural areas
0
0
0
0
0
0
Eco-toxicological properties
0
-2
-3
-4
-5
-5
Human toxicological properties
0
-2
-3
-4
-5
-5
Fire risk
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mechanical risk
0
0
0
0
0
0
Biological risk
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potential environmental impacts
Potential safety risks
The figures below depict the results in graphical form.
No figure for potential level of uncertainty is included because it does not change in
the recovery chain (especially regarding toxic parameters such as dioxins and other
organic impurities).
132
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Figure 53: Potential level of uncertainty of EAF filter dust in the recovery
chain
The potential safety risk concerning the uncertainty about impurities is not included
because the information about potential organo-halogen content is not changed in
the recovery chain.
133
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Figure 54: Potential environmental impact of EAF filter dust in the recovery
chain
The global warming potential is not included in the figure because it does not change
significantly (after pre-selection a low carbon content is guaranteed on a level that is
of little relevance for global warming).
4.8.5 Conclusions
The recovery chain consists of five unit operations. It ends with a drying step following leaching. This final treatment step leads to no further reduction of the wastespecific characteristics. These have already reached a minimum earlier.
No binding reference exists at a European level which covers all relevant environmental issues.
134
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
4.9 Fly ash from hard coal power stations in cement blending
4.9.1 Current waste situation
Fly ash from hard coal power stations occurs when flue gas is cleansed by electrostatic or mechanical precipitation. It is a mixture of substances that mainly consists
of silicon dioxide (SiO2) and aluminium oxide (Al2O3).
63 million tonnes of coal combustion residues occurred in 1997 in Western Europe.
Fly ash with 71% (47 million tonnes) represents the biggest share. Approximately 31
million tonnes were utilised in different applications (see Figure 55).
Blended
cement 14%
Road
construction
13%
Infill 6%
Concrete
blocks 9%
Bricks 1%
Others 2%
Cement raw
material 24%
Concrete
31%
[IEA 2002]
Figure 55: Use of fly ash within the European Union in 199791
The figure shows that the main options are utilisation in concrete, in cement production and with the blending of cement.
When mixed with lime and water the fly ash forms a cementitious compound with
properties very similar to those of Portland cement. Because of this similarity, fly ash
can be used to replace a portion of cement, providing a distinct quality which can
have advantages in certain constructions (for example the hardening of concrete is
91
excluding restoration, disposal and temporary stockpiles
135
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
slower and less hot which is an advantage that is used for big constructions such as
dams and large basements). The resultant concrete is denser and has a tighter,
smoother surface. If Portland cement is produced from clinker and fillers, it is called
pozzolanic cement or fly ash cement. The adding of any fillers with the characteristics of pozzolana92, such as fly ash, sand, slag and limestone reduces production
costs. In Europe the average clinker content in cement is 80-85% [CL BREF 2000].
4.9.2 Assessed recovery chain
In this section the recovery chain for hard coal power plant fly ash, which is used for
the blending of cement, is analysed.
It comprises the unit operations “pre-selection” of fly ash and “blending” for cement
production. The case study includes ‘M1-M2’ materials within the recovery chain and
‘I’ the input at the end of the recovery chain.
Recovery Chain of Fly Ashes
for Cement Blending
Unit operation 2
Unit operation 1
Fly ash
M1
Pre-selection
M2
Blending
O
Residue
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Figure 56: Assessed recovery chain of fly ash used for cement blending
92
Pozzolanas contain silica and alumina in a reactive form, able to combine with lime in the presence of water to form compounds with cementitious properties. Natural pozzolana consists of volcanic earth; artificial pozzolana combines a fly ash and
water-quenched boiler slag [CL BREF 2000].
136
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
4.9.2.1
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Collection system
The transport of fly ashes is mainly realised using silo trucks. Should the silos at the
power station be full, then fly ash is stored in the open air and wetted. The wet fly
ash is transported to the cement industry in open trucks.
4.9.2.2
M1 - Primary waste
Fly ash is a fine glass powder which consists primarily of silica, alumina and iron.
Fly ash as input material M1 is listed in the European Waste Catalogue under the
code “10 01 02 Coal fly ash” as an inorganic waste that originates from a thermal
process. Fly ash from hard coal power plants has varying compositions which mainly
depend on the origin of the coal used in the respective installation (see [Rentz/Martel
1998]).
The following table shows ranges of the chemical composition of fly ash.
Table 50: Chemical composition of hard coal power plant fly ash used in
the cement industry
[mg/kg] min
max
5 - 321
As
5 - 40
Be
0.2 - 34
Cd
12 - 101
Co
29 - 330
Cr
42 - 652
Cu
0 - 2.4
Hg
71 - 1180
Mn
26 - 600
Ni
7 - 800
Pb
1 - 37
Sb
0.7 - 35
Se
6 - 64
Sn
Te
0.2 - 29
Tl
122 - 940
V
51 - 1200
Zn
[UBA-ITAS 2003]
mean
79
15
2.6
74
172
247
0.3
484
196
257
14
8
10
1.6
4
345
504
min
max
0.2 - 4.0
71 - 330
0 - 1.0
92 - 300
58 - 800
0.7 - 4.0
67 - 910
[VDZ 1996]
The following figures show the ranges and the mean values of different heavy metals
according to the data of UBA-ITAS.
137
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Heavy metal content of fly ash
800
321
120
257
101
100
80
79
[mg/kg]
74
min
64
60
max
mean
40
40
37
34
35
29
20
15
5
2,6
5
14
11,7
2,4
0,2
0
As
Be
Cd
0,04
Hg
Co
8
7
0,3
1
Pb
Sb
10
4
6
0,7
Se
0,2
Sn
Tl
[UBA-ITAS 2003]
Figure 57: Ranges and mean values of the heavy metal content of hard
coal power plant fly ash used in cement industry (1)
Heavy metal content of fly ash
1200
1200
1180
1000
940
[mg/kg]
800
min
652
max
600
600
mean
504
484
400
345
330
247
200
196
172
122
29
0
Cr
41,6
Cu
71
Mn
51
26
Ni
V
Zn
[UBA-ITAS 2003]
Figure 58: Ranges and mean values of the heavy metal content of hard
coal power plant fly ash used in cement industry (2)
138
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
The following table shows exemplary values of organic and halogen content of fly
ash.
Table 51: Exemplary organic and halogen data of fly ash from hard coal
power plants
Parameter
Method: El/S4 Dest
Boron
Chloride
Cyanide (total)
Fluoride
Anthracene
Benzo-[a]-anthracene
Benzo-[a]-pyrene
Benzo-[b]-fluoranthene
Benzo-[ghi]-perylene
Benzo-[k]-fluoranthene
Fluoranthene
Indeno-[1,2,3-cd]-pyrene
PAH (total)
PAH-EPA (total)
AOX
EOX
Method: El/S4 Grub
Unit
#
Minimum Maximum Mean Variation
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
µg/l
µg/l
µg/l
µg/l
µg/l
µg/l
µg/l
µg/l
µg/l
µg/l
mg/l
mg/l
20
108
37
71
1
1
5
4
5
5
5
5
13
1
34
10
0.01
2
0.001
0.005
0.01
0.01
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.02
0.05
0.05
0.01
0.63
0.001
0.01
11.52
1634
0.1
355
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.05
0.08
0.05
4.6
0.11
0.25
0.63
0.19
0.05
2.3
120
0.019
6.8
0.01
0.01
0.048
0.05
0.056
0.044
1.1
0.062
0.075
0.63
0.025
0.03
2.99
288
0.0154
42.0
0
0
0.00447
0
0.0134
0.0134
1.96
0.0268
0.0770
0
0.0347
0.0176
Chloride
Sulphate
Method: OS/solid
Sum Tetra- to OctaCDF/D
Sum TetraCDD
2378-TetraCDD
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo-[a]-anthracene
Benzo-[a]-pyrene
Benzo-[b]-fluoranthene
Benzo-[ghi]-perylene
Benzo-[k]-fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenz-[ah]-anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno-[1,2,3-cd]-pyrene
Naphthaline
PAH (total)
PAH-EPA (total)
PAH-TVO (total)
mg/l
mg/l
10
10
21
756
62
8260
39
3800
15.5
3160
µg/kg
µg/kg
µg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
3
1
5
1
1
2
2
10
10
10
10
1
1
10
1
10
1
3
5
4
0.005
0.001
0.001
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.05
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.05
0.01
1.23
0.06
0.02
0.001
0.007
0.05
0.05
14
15
49
36
82
26
0.05
0.05
267
0.05
111
0.05
0.9
632
0.3
0.01 0.00866
0.001
0
0.003 0.002832
0.05
0
0.05
0
7.03
9.86
7.5
10.6
4.9
15.5
3.6
11.4
8.2
25.9
2.6
8.22
0.05
0
0.05
0
27
84.4
0.05
0
11
35.1
0.05
0
0.31
0.511
128
282
0.24
0.12
139
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Parameter
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
PCB
2,2,3,4,4,5-Hexachlorbiphenyl
2,2,3,4,4,5,5-Heptachlorbiphenyl
2,2,4,4,5,5-Hexachlorbiphenyl
2,2,4,5,5-Pentachlorbiphenyl
2,2,5,5-Tetrachlorbiphenyl
2,4,4-Trichlorbiphenyl
Unit
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
#
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Minimum Maximum Mean Variation
1
0.05
0.05
0.05
0
1
0.05
0.05
0.05
0
4 0.00006
0.03
0.023 0.0150
1 0.005
0.005
0.005
0
1 0.005
0.005
0.005
0
1 0.005
0.005
0.005
0
1 0.005
0.005
0.005
0
1 0.005
0.005
0.005
0
1 0.005
0.005
0.005
0
[NRW-LUA 2003]
4.9.2.3 Pre-selection
During pre-selection those fly ashes are separated which are not suitable for blending because they hinder the achievement of the required output quality of the cement. Power stations co-operate with the users of fly ash to make sure that the desired quality is guaranteed. Therefore, a first quality control is often carried out by
the power station or by subcontracted enterprises.
Before fly ash is used in cement production a chemical analysis will be carried out to
make sure that the input fraction of the recovery chain (“M1”) fulfils the requirements. For the blending of cement, only certain fly ash with a specific composition is
allowed to be used. The table shows the physical parameters of standardised fly ash
for cement production that were established as EN Standards in 1995.
140
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Table 52: EN Standard 450 on fly ash for the cement industry
Property
EN 450 limits
Particle density (kg/m3)
± 150 kg/m3 of declared value
Fineness on 45 mm
≤ 40% retained 45 mm sieve.
Must be within ± 10% of declared value
Soundness (mm)
≤ 10 mm of 50% fly ash + 50% CEM I 42.5
Sulphur: maximum present as SO3% ≤ 3%
Chloride (%)
Calcium oxide
Loss on ignition (%)
≤ 0.10%
Expressed as free CaO < 1.0% or
2.5% if soundness satisfactory
≤ 5.0% (Category A), 2-7% (Cat. B), 4-9% (Cat. C)
Moisture content (%)
Activity Index:
ref. EN 450 - EN 196 - 1
Dry
≥ 75% @ 28 days and
≥ 85% @ 90 days of 25% fly ash + 75% CEM I 42.5
[EN 450 1995]
4.9.2.4 M2 - Blending input
Fly ash from hard coal power plants as input material for cement blending comprises
a large variety of substances as described above in Table 44.
Only the parameters that form part of the EN standard can be evaluated for the description of “M2”. Regarding the waste properties of “M2” in comparison with “M1” a
decrease of some uncertainties is achieved, in particular regarding chloride content.
The limiting value for the parameter “loss on ignition” is an indicator that the content
of organic substances is decreased. These parameters are checked by quality controls.
There are mainly two potential environmental impacts that are touched by the preselection: the acidification and eutrophication potential (sulphur content as SO3 below 3%).
Other parameters relevant for the focus of this case study are not changed significantly within this unit operation.
4.9.2.5 Blending process
Portland cement is produced by blending in intergrinding mills (vertical roller mills or
high pressure twin roller mills). The input is cement clinker and sulphates such as
141
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
gypsum and, for the production of “composite cements”, fly ash is added, also
granulated blast furnace slag, natural or artificial pozzolana, limestone or inert fillers
[CL BREF 2000].
Most mills work in closed circuit which means that they return coarse materials to the
mill until they have reached the required particle size. Most systems are limited to a
maximum moisture content of the feed mixture of 2-4%. Pre-drying of mineral additives is processed by cooler exhaust air, kiln exhaust gases or by an independent hot
gas source.
The composition regarding substances with relevance for the subject of this study is
not changed in this unit operation.
4.9.2.6
‘I’ – blending output
The output of the recovery chain is a cement of a certain quality. Cement qualities
are defined for different purposes by 27 definitions included in a EN Standard [EN
197 2000/2001], additionally there are Member State regulations. The Standard includes several limiting values for different shares of fly ash used in the cement production.
The Standard does not comprise requirements for substances which are in the focus
of this case study.
4.9.3 Comparable products
4.9.3.1 Reference 1: not applicable
According to the methodology of this study Reference 1 is defined as the product
from which the waste derives. The fly ash which is subject of this case study derives
from the combustion of hard coal and is used as blending material for cement. There
is no functional equivalence between those two types of applications so that an assessment based on Reference 1 does not lead to sensible results.
4.9.3.2 Reference 2: Natural sand used for cement blending
Reference 2 is defined as a primary (pre-)product or raw material that is substituted
in the recovery chain. In the case of fly ash for cement blending a comparison with
the slag fillers is not suitable because slag is also an output of a recovery chain and
not a primary raw material.
Natural sand can be defined as a possible Reference 2 because it is also used as a
filler for cement, thus fly ash substitutes sand in the recovery chain. However, a sand
142
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
filler does not precisely possess the same functional equivalence because of the cementitious properties of fly ash.
Fly ash used for blending in cement production has to fulfil the requirements of the
Standard EN 450. The Standard covers very few waste specific properties like chlorine and loss of ignition. Other relevant parameters like heavy metal concentrations
are missing or only covered by sum parameters which do not allow a comparison
(e.g. for hazardous organic substances).
4.9.3.3 Reference 3: Input definitions of material used for cement blending
EN standard 405 defines properties of fly ash that is used for blending of cement
(see Section 4.9). This Standard does not fully cover parameters which are relevant
for the assessment whether waste specific environmental issues are neutralised or
not (e.g. chlorine, heavy metals, hazardous organic substances)93.
Those parameters may be defined in specifications which do not have the same general binding character as EN Standards (e.g. definitions on the level of enterprises or
the sector).
The existing EN standard 405 is a standard for a raw material which aims at fulfilling
user-specific properties of the final product cement. The missing integration of environmental parameters in the EN standard corresponds with the fact that, for raw material of natural origin, there is no restriction either concerning environmental parameters such as heavy metals or hazardous organic substances, although the concentrations of these substances are in some cases similar or even higher. If environmental parameters are included in a Standard on recovered material for the assessment of the reduction of waste specific properties, this may lead to an imbalance
compared to missing restrictions on raw material of natural origin with similar characteristics.
93
Loss on ignition is a sum parameter that is not detailed enough to focus on those organic substances which have a higher
environmental relevance.
143
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
4.9.4 Specific properties, potential impacts and risks
The following table describes the potential impacts and risks as described in the section about ‘Methodology’.
Table 53: Potential impacts and risks arising from the waste during the recovery chain of fly ash
M1 M2
I
Potential level of uncertainty
Uncertainty about composition
0
-5
-5
Uncertainty about impurities
0
-5
-5
Global warming
-
-
-
Acidification
0
-5
-5
Eutrophication
0
-5
-5
Ozone depletion
-
-
-
Photochemical ozone creation
0
-5
-5
Encroachment on natural areas
0
-5
-5
Eco-toxicological properties
0
-5
-5
Human toxicological properties
0
-5
-5
Fire risk
-
-
-
Mechanical risk
-
-
-
Biological risk
-
-
-
Potential environmental impacts
Potential safety risks
Dealing with a fine dust-like material the criteria ‘mechanical risk’ is not included in
the graphs, as it is not reduced if input and output of the recovery chain are compared. The same holds for the criterion ‘biological risk’ which does not have to be
dealt with in this case. As there is no global warming potential and no ozone depletion potential arising from the fly ash, these criteria are also neglected.
The figures below depict the results of the assessment in a graphical form. Criteria
that are not assessed are not included in the graphs.
144
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Figure 59: Potential level of uncertainty of fly ash in the recovery chain
Figure 60: Potential environmental impact of fly ash in the recovery chain
145
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
4.9.5 Conclusions
The recovery chain is very short in this case study. It consists of two unit operations
only. Only with the checking and, possibly, exfiltration of the delivered charges in the
course of pre-selection does an influencing/reduction of the waste-specific characteristics take place.
A comparison of hard coal power plant fly ash with the Reference 1 product (that
leads to the production of the assessed waste) is not sensible in view of methodological aspects.
A comparison with a Reference 2 product would only be possible with natural fillers
(e.g. sand). But it has to be taken into consideration that the functional equivalence
is not exactly the same. There is a EN standard for the secondary product that substitutes the primary product natural sand. However, the Standard does not cover all
waste specific aspects (only chlorine and the sum parameter Loss On Ignition LOI)
thus toxic properties such as heavy metal content and organic compounds of fly ash,
in comparison with natural sand, are higher.
Concerning the comparison with Reference 3 (input definitions) it can be stated that
there is no general input definition. The code of practice shows that fly ash compared to other input materials has higher heavy metal contents. Thus no basis is
available in order to state that the waste specific properties/risks are neutralised.
146
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
4.10 Solvents from paint shops and printing industry
4.10.1
Current waste situation
Around 4.5 million tonnes of solvents were put on the Western European market in
1995. The paint and coating industry uses approximately 2 million tonnes of solvents
per year [ESIG 2003].
Agricultural
Oil seed chemicals 2%
extract 2%
Dry cleaning
1%
Others 8%
Paints 46%
Rubber/polymer manufacture 4%
Metal/industrial cleaning
4%
House/car 6%
Personal care
6%
Printing inks
6%
Adhesives 6%
Pharmaceutic
als 9%
[ESIG 2003]
Figure 61: Sectors of solvent use in Western Europe
Three different types of solvents can be identified: hydrocarbon solvents (aliphatics,
aromatics), oxygenated solvents (alcohols, ketones, esters, glycol esters) and halogenated solvents.
No figures of the total waste amount used for solvent recovery from paint shops and
printing industry is available. In nine Member States and three regions arose 113,000
tonnes of waste from the manufacture, formulation, supply and use of coatings
(paints, varnishes and vitreous enamels), adhesives, sealants94 [EEA Report 1999].
94
Member State and regions data based on the years 1994 to 1998
147
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
4.10.2
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Assessed recovery chain
This section covers solvents from paint shops and the printing industry which are
distilled for usage in these areas (including general cleaning activities).
The recovery chain comprises the unit operations pre-selection and distillation, ‘M1M2’ materials within the recovery chain and ‘I’ the input at the end of the recovery
chain are included in this case study.
Recovery Chain for Solvents
Unit operation1
Used
solvents
M1
Pre-selection
Residues
Unit operation2
M2
Distillation
I
Sludges
Institutefor Environmental Strategies
Figure 62: Assessed recovery chain
4.10.2.1 Collection system
‘Contaminated’ solvents from paint shops and the printing industry as input source
for solvent recovery comprises different types of solvents (e.g. mixed hydrocarbons,
toluene, ethanol etc.) arising in different areas (ink residues, used cleaning agents).
Storing in the plant is realised in containers, barrels or tanks, thus collection of containers is by pallets on trucks; tank contents are pumped into tanks mounted on
trucks.
Solvent suppliers are often involved in recovery activities thus they carry out client
solvent supply and collection of waste for further processing at the same time.
148
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
4.10.2.2
Institute for Environmental Strategies
M1 Primary waste
The input material M1 can be characterised generally as volatile organic compounds
with impurities. The solvent share is characterised by a high vapour pressure (above
0.01 kPa), a low boiling point (below 250°C) and a low flash point (below 100°C).
The input material M1 consists of solvents from paint shops and the printing industry
which were used to adjust the viscosity of the ink systems and for the cleaning of
machinery, containers and other parts in contact with inks. The waste character of
the solvents results from a level of impurities which is no longer acceptable to the
users.
Different solvents are used in paint shops and the printing industry according to the
ink system applied. The ink systems are dedicated to certain technologies (offset
printing, flexography, publication or packaging gravure printing). All printing industries, with the exception of offset printing, use similar solvents for the ink system and
for cleaning activities.
Only offset printing uses high boiling oils as solvents for the ink system which are not
volatile under normal conditions and not suitable for this recovery chain. For cleaning
activities offset printing uses predominantly solvents with low boiling points, but may
also use high boiling solvents of mineral oils and/or vegetable esters [Ökopol/BAUM
1997].
In flexography alcohols and ketones predominate; glycol esters with a high boiling
point are suitable for cleaning activities but are not often used.
Solvents of the different ink systems and cleaning activities in the printing industry:
Printing technology
Offset printing
flexography
packaging gravure printing
publication gravure printing
[Ökopol estimate]
Solvent
aliphatics, aromatics
alcohols, ketones, esters, glycol esters
alcohols, ketones, esters, glycol esters
aromatics (toluene)
High boiling low boiling
x
x
(x)
x
x
x
The input material M1 is listed in the European Waste Catalogue under Code 8 if it
originates from the manufacture, formulation, supply and use of coatings, adhesives,
sealants and printing inks. If it originates from printing activities it is listed under
Number 14 of the European Waste Catalogue.
The following table shows typical list numbers of input material M1.
149
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Table 54: Typical code numbers of the recovery chain for solvents from
manufacturing, formulation, supply and use of coatings, adhesives, sealants and printing inks
8 00 00
WASTES FROM THE MANUFACTURE, FORMULATION, SUPPLY AND USE (MFSU)
OF COATINGS (PAINTS, VARNISHES AND VITREOUS ENAMELS), ADHESIVE,
SEALANTS AND PRINTING INKS
08 01 00 Wastes from MFSU of paint and varnish
08 01 11* Waste paint and varnish containing organic solvents or other dangerous substances
08 01 13* Sludges from paint or varnish removal containing organic solvents or other dangerous substances
08 01 17* Waste from paint or varnish removal containing organic solvents or other dangerous substances
08 03 00 Waste from MFSU of printing inks
08 03 12* Waste ink containing dangerous substances
08 03 14* Ink sludges containing dangerous substances
08 04 00 Waste from MFSU of adhesives and sealants (including waterproofing products)
08 04 09* Waste adhesives and sealants containing organic solvents or other dangerous substances
08 04 11* Adhesives and sealants sludges containing organic solvents or other dangerous substances
* Any waste marked with an asterisk is considered as a hazardous waste pursuant to Directive
91/689/EEC on hazardous waste, and subject to the provisions of that Directive unless Article 1(5) of
that Directive applies.
[EUROP 2002, Rethmann 2003]
Waste from paint shops and the printing industry may contain a high share of water.
The water content depends on the ink system respectively on the cleaning system
the solvent was used for.
The table shows the water content that is to be expected from input material of different sources in printing industry:
Table 55: Typical water content of solvent waste from printing industry
Printing technology
Applied ink system
Offset printing
Flexography
Flexography
Packaging gravure printing
Packaging gravure printing
Publication gravure printing
[Ökopol estimate]
high boiling oils
solvent based
water based
solvent based
water based
toluene based
Expected water content in waste of
inks
cleaning agents
(no recovery)
up to 90%
no
no
(no recovery)
up to 10%
no
no
(no recovery)
up to 10%
no
no
Solvent waste from manufacturing and formulation of inks will vary considerably,
according to the coatings used and the amounts of solvents required for cleaning.
150
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Such wastes occur, for example, through the cleaning of equipment used for mixing
or for application of coatings, through collection of paint residues at the bottom of
containers, as paint wastes created as a result of overspray or resulting from cleaning of the equipment.
The following data is exemplary, based on estimates of experts and monitoring data
provided by industry representatives within the UK waste recycling sector.
Table 56: Average composition of paint wastes
Component
Solvents
Ketones (e.g. acetone, MEK, methylisobutylketone)
Esters
Aromatics
Alcohols
Chlorinated solvents (e.g. methylene chloride)
Other hydrocarbons
Water
Paint solids (e.g. pigments, clay, fillers)
[UK-EA 2003]
4.10.2.3
Average concentration [% w/w]
< 20 %
< 17 %
< 35 %
< 10 %
< 0.2 %
< 20 %
10 %
10 %
Pre-selection
During pre-selection those materials are separated which are not suitable for economic distillation and/or which hinder the achievement of the required output quality.
In general input material is refused which is toxic, explosive or polymerising.
The refusal of material containing PCB for recovery is based on Council Directive
75/439/EEC of 16 June 1975 on the disposal of waste oils which lays down 50 ppm
as the maximum limit for the PCB or PCT content of regenerated oils or oils used as
fuel and on Directive 96/59/EC95 which demands: “Without prejudice to their international obligations, Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that
used PCBs are disposed of and PCBs and equipment containing PCBs are decontaminated or disposed of as soon as possible.” Some Member States require a lower PCB
limit for recovery.96
With regard to chlorinated hydrocarbons, no maximum limit value for regeneration is
fixed in Europe. But some Member States have fixed limits97 and some recovery
95
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 96/59/EC of 16 September 1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT)
96
e.g. German limit for PCB content: 20 ppm (Altölverordnung)
97
e.g. German limit for halogenated hydrocarbon content: 2000 ppm (Altölverordnung)
151
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
plants only accept input material with low or no chlorinated hydrocarbons98 content in
order to guarantee workers’ health protection and the quality of product output.
For pre-selection the laboratory conducts a gas-chromatography analysis and a test
distillation before a new material is processed in order to decide on admission, to
determine the operating parameters of the distillation and to be able to give a feedback to the client on expected distillation costs.
Most tests of input material are carried out for the identification of:
•
PCBs
•
Chlorinated hydrocarbons
•
Fluorine content
•
Water content
•
Boiling point
The operation has high variability with regard to the water content of the output
stream; nevertheless, for economic reasons, the majority of the recovered material is
accepted only if the water content is below 5% to achieve high quality products.
In some cases – especially if a return of the output to the client is part of the contract – both input and output material may contain water as long as it does not disturb the aimed purpose. Some solvents such as isopropanol and ethanol are not easy
to separate from water by distillation. Therefore the recovery operation takes place
only if the application of the expected output (e.g. containing 15-20% isopropanol) is
guaranteed.
4.10.2.4
M2 Distillation input
The input material for the distillation comprises all varieties of substances except
those separated in the pre-selection step (see above). A precise description of its
composition thus is not possible.
The following table shows an example of the amounts and main components of five
materials that are used as input “M2” and afterwards mixed in the recovery chain.
98
e.g. limit of ORM Bergold/Germany and Rethmann-RESOLVE/Germany: 1000 ppm;
152
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Table 57: Exemplary composition of the inputs to distillation
Waste 1
Waste 2
86% n-butylacetate
20% acetone
10% m+n xylene
50% ethylacetate
0.5% water
24% shellsol 60-95
0.5% water
1.43 m3
1.43 m3
Waste 3
Waste 4
16% acetone
96% toluene
20% ethylacetate
0.14% Water
30% n-butylacetate
6.5% water
8.6 m3
7.14 m3
Waste 5
83% acetone
10% ethylacetate
2.4% water
1.43 m3
[Resolve 2003]
4.10.2.5
Distillation
Distillation aims at the separation of impurities which may exist in inks, varnishes,
paper dust and water.
Distillation techniques consist of a slow evaporation under vacuum conditions. Solvent waste is filled batch-wise or continuously in electrically or steam heated vessels
with max. 180°C (depending on desired output fraction) under a pressure of about
50 mbar. Afterwards the distilled fraction is condensed in coolers. Some evaporators
are self-cleaning with agitators and scraper blades.
The result of the evaporation varies depending on the character of the input material. In general about 70% output is achieved. About 30% is disposed of.
4.10.2.6
“I” Distillation output
The output of the distillation comprises all varieties of substances except those which
are separated in the pre-selection step (see above) and those remaining in the distillation sludge. A precise description of its composition is not possible because of the
variability described above.
Table 58 shows an example of five distilled fractions from paint manufacturing with
the input characteristics described above. When the output is mixed after distillation,
about 70% of the input of the unit operation “distillation” have characteristics according to the input “I” (see Table 59).
Table 58: Exemplary output amounts from the distillation
Input
For further use
Waste 1
1.43 m3
1.00 m3
Waste 2
1.43 m3
1.00 m3
Waste 3
8.6 m3
6.0 m3
Waste 4
7.14 m3
5.00 m3
Waste 5
1.43 m3
1.00 m3
[Resolve 2003]
153
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Table 59: Exemplary composition of a mixture from five recovery fractions
Main composition
12% acetone
35% toluene
16% n-butylacetate
6 % m+p xylene
5% shellsol 60-95
1 % water
[Resolve 2003]
The output of the recovery chain is a solvent that has characteristics suitable for use
as general cleaning agent for paint manufacture. For explosion prevention a flash
point above 21°C is guaranteed.
4.10.3
Comparable products
4.10.3.1
Reference 1: Special solvents for dilution and cleaning
According to the methodology of this part of the study all those solvents used for
dilution and cleaning activities in the ink manufacturing industry that end up as input
of the recovery chain (see the five examples above) are appropriate as Reference 1.
In order to achieve the characteristics of the secondary product from the recovery
chain, in this exemplary case study five different solvent inputs are distilled and
mixed. This mixture is not suitable for ink dilution in paint manufacturing because
inks require precisely defined solvent specifications to achieve the desired ink characteristics. It can only be used for cleaning activities.
The output of the recovery chain thus has no functional equivalence referring to the
substances that ended up in the waste respectively as input of the recovery chain.
4.10.3.2
Reference 2: Solvents from primary raw material
Solvents made of primary raw material which are used for the same purpose as the
output of the recovery chain are defined as Reference 2.
The output of the recovery chain is a universal cleaning agent. All universal cleaning
agents on the European market are produced by distillation of solvent waste. Cleaning agents for paint manufacturing and the printing industry are always client-specific
mixtures made from single raw material substances. Solvents for technical use are
produced with a purity of 95-95%; no dangerous substances above the classification
limit are included. Thus a universal cleaning agent comparable with the output of the
recovery chain does not exist.
There is no product-specific Standards in the European Union for universal cleaning
agents. In recovered solvents PCB content is limited (see Section 4.8.2.3), but no
154
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
further specifications related to environmental aspects exist for the output of the recovery chain. In the recovery chain assessed above the output includes dangerous
substances like toluene above the classification limit.
4.10.3.3
Reference 3: Direct use of the material from the recovery chain
Users of solvents from printing and paint manufacturing require different input specifications according to the technology used and the purpose of the solvent. The requirements are not generally defined. There are input specifications that require pure
substances like those for dilution of inks in the printing industry and for mixing of
paints and varnishes in paint manufacturing. However, the output of the recovery
chain as described in the example above (mixture of five recovered fractions) does
not meet these specifications. It can only be used for other cleaning activities.
The requirements of the VOC Directive [VOC Directive 1999] on the emission of VOC
from specific activities and on the emission of substances that have carcinogenic,
mutagenic or reprotoxic effects influence the quality of solvents used in the respective applications. However, as these requirements refer to the emissions no specification for solvent input is determined. The Directive on product-specific characteristics
of paints and varnishes (which is presently under discussion) would define requirements concerning the limit of the VOC share but will not define any characteristics or
chemical composition of the solvents used in these products [Decopaint 2002].
A Reference 3 referring to input specifications cannot be defined.
155
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
4.10.4
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Specific properties, potential impacts and risks
The following table describes the potential impacts and risks as described in the section about ‘Methodology’ for the recovery chain of solvent waste from paint manufacturing and the printing industry.
Table 60: Potential impacts and risks for recovered solvents
M1 M2
I
Potential Level of Uncertainty
Uncertainty about composition
0
-2
-5
Uncertainty about impurities
0
-2
-5
Global warming
0
0
0
Acidification
0
-5
-5
Eutrophication
0
-5
-5
Ozone depletion
0
-4
-5
Photochemical ozone creation
0
0
0
Encroachment on natural areas
0
-5
-5
Eco toxicological properties
0
-3
-5
Human toxicological properties
0
-3
-5
Fire risk
0
0
0
Mechanical risk
0
0
0
Biological risk
0
-1
-5
Potential environmental impacts
Potential safety risks
The criterion ‘Mechanical risk’ is not included in the graphs because of the liquid
character of the substances referred to. The criteria ‘Global warming’ and ‘Photochemical ozone creation’ are not taken into consideration because they do not
change along the recovery chain.
156
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
The figures below depict the results in graphical form.
Figure 63: Potential level of uncertainty for solvents in the recovery chain
The potential risk concerning the uncertainty about composition and about impurities
is changed to the minimum in the first unit operation “pre-selection” because of a
complete chemical analysis of the collected waste.
157
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Figure 64: Potential environmental impacts of solvents in the recovery
chain
Figure 65: Potential safety risks for solvents in the recovery chain
158
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
4.10.5
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Conclusions
The recovery chain consists of only two unit operations. In addition to the preselection the distillation as separation step also influences the waste-specific characteristics significantly.
For universal cleaning agents resulting from the assessed recovery chain there is no
comparable product that leads to the production of the assessed waste. The waste is
produced by solvents that meet the characteristics for certain uses such as solvents
for ink dilution. This implies a low range of composition. The output of the recovery
chain has characteristics which could be compared with those products on the market made for general cleaning activities but not with the products that led to the production of the assessed waste.
Standards for universal cleaning agents do not exist; there are solely legal requirements concerning the PCB and halogen content. General input specifications also do
not exist.
The waste specific properties/risks are reduced in the recovery chain with regard to
the uncertainty about composition and impurities.
There is no change of the biological risks in the pre-selection unit but in the distillation biological risks are minimised because of the treatment under high temperature.
The fire risk is generally not changed during the recovery chain.
The potential risk of acidification and eutrophication is decreased to a minimum in
the unit operation “pre-selection” assuming that the halogen content is not accepted.
The same counts for the potential risk of ozone depletion by halogens. The photochemical ozone creation potential is decreased in the pre-selection unit because organo-halogenic compounds are not accepted.
The potential risk resulting from human and eco-toxicological properties is minimised
in the “pre-selection” unit because PCB content is not accepted. It can be assumed
that, after pre-selection, the recovered solvents have at the most a very low PCB
content and a low content of halogenated hydrocarbons (<1%).
This means that some waste-specific properties/risks (especially the eco-toxicological
and human toxicological properties) are systematically decreased, but other wastespecific properties such as the aromatics content and the water content depend on
the desired output quality and may not have changed.
159
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
4.11 Waste wood
4.11.1
Current waste situation
Even though the term “waste wood” still lacks a common definition it is estimated
that between 44.8-81.4 mill. t/a wood arise from wood products99 [Cost E31 2002].
Table 61: Estimates for the annual amount of recovered wood100
Country
Austria
Denmark
Finland
Germany
Greece
Italy
Netherlands
Norway
Sweden
Total
Mill t/a
2.5-3.5
1.5
7-15
11-20
0.5-1.1
7.8
3-5
1.5-2.5
10-25
44.8-81.4
[Cost E 31 2002].
The European wood-based panels Federation (EPF) estimates that ~ 25 mill tonnes
of waste wood are annually recovered within EU-15 [EPF, pers. com.].
European Furniture Manufacturers estimates that between approximately 35 million
tonnes of wood waste arise annually within the European Union.
It is stated that 5-7 million tonnes (< 20%) of the total wood waste arising in the EU
comes from old furniture [UEANET 2003].
4.11.2
Waste flows for wood in Europe
Cost E 31101 indicated that “some of this102 recovered wood is recycled, only a small
fraction is used for energy generation, and a substantial fraction is landfilled”.
The European Panel Federation (EPF) estimates that about half of the arising waste
wood is either exported, landfilled or burnt without energy recycling [EPF pers. com].
99
excluding paper, data from AU, DK, FN, D, Gr, I, NL, No, S
“the definition of recovered wood varies between the reporting countries” [Cost E 31 2002]
100
101
COST E31: European Co-operation in the field of Scientific and Technical Research: Forests and Forestry Products Management of recovered wood
102
this meaning „recovered solid wood from wood products reaching the end of their primary life (excludes recovered paper).
160
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
The panel board industry consumes around 16.5 mill tonnes dry matter wood annually throughout the European Union for the particle/chip board production.
The input materials are made up from 56% industrial residues, 24% are wood timber
and 21% of “post-consumer” wood. Furthermore it is estimated that approximately
8.45 million tonnes of wood biomass are combusted [EPF pers. com].
25-81.4
25-81.4mio
miot/a
t/a
waste
wood
waste wood
Chip
Chip board
board
production:
production:
3.46
3.46 mio
mio t/a
t/a
Combustion
Combustion of
of
wooden
wooden biomass:
biomass:
8.45
8.45 mio
mio t/a
t/a
Landfilling,export
Landfilling,export
or
or incineration:
incineration:
12.5
12.5 -- 40.7
40.7 mio
mio t/a
t/a
Fate
Fate unknown:
unknown:
0.59
0.59 -- 28.78
28.78 mio
mio t/a
t/a
[COST E 31 2002, Europanels, per com.]
Figure 66: Fate and total waste wood amount in Europe
4.11.3
Assessed recovery chain
This section covers waste wood which is processed in a panel production facility.
The recovery chain comprises the unit operations sorting, mixing, chipping/sorting,
drying, pasting and finishing and ‘I’ the input at the end of the recovery
4.11.3.1 Collection system
Waste wood of the assessed recovery chain comes predominately from households
and from the packaging sector.
4.11.3.2 M1 Primary waste
Waste wood is usually a mixture of differently contaminated woods and therefore the
amount of contaminants for one specific piece of wood can differ widely from the
average.
161
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Waste wood can roughly be separated into three categories depending on its origin:
untreated wood103, non-hazardous treated wood104 and hazardous waste wood. The
proportion of each of these waste streams has been estimated for untreated wood to
be 15-10% of the total waste wood, 75-80% for the non-hazardous treated wood
and 15-5% for the hazardous waste wood [Görisch 2002]105.
Several other classification would be possible to differentiate between the kinds of
hazardous substances, such as wood preservatives or flame retardants.
Depending on the origin and the contamination of the waste wood the subsequent
treatment path is partly determined by legal restrictions.
According to the European Waste Catalogue wood from wood processing, packaging
waste, construction and demolition waste and municipal waste is listed, see Table
62:
Table 62: Wood listed in the European Waste Catalogue
03 WASTES FROM WOOD PROCESSING AND THE PRODUCTION OF PAPER, CARDBOARD,
PULP, PANELS AND FURNITURE
03 01 Wastes from wood processing and the production of panels and furniture
03 01 01 Waste bark and cork
03 01 02 Sawdust
03 01 03 Shaving, cuttings, spoiled timber/particle board/veneer
03 01 99 Wastes not otherwise specified
03 WASTES FROM WOOD PROCESSING AND THE PRODUCTION OF PANELS AND FURNITURE, PULP, PAPER AND CARDBOARD
03 01 Wastes from wood processing and the production of panels and furniture
03 01 01 Waste bark and cork
03 01 04* Sawdust, shavings, cuttings, wood, particle board and veneer containing dangerous substances
03 01 05 Sawdust, shavings, cuttings, wood, particle board and veneer other than those mentioned in
03 01 04
03 01 99 Wastes not otherwise specified
03 03 Wastes from pulp, paper and cardboard production and processing
03 03 01 Waste bark and wood
15 WASTE PACKAGING; ABSORBENTS, WIPING CLOTHS, FILTER MATERIALS AND PROTECTIVE CLOTHING NOT OTHERWISE SPECIFIED
15 01 Packaging
15 01 03 Wooden packaging
17 CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTES (INCLUDING ROAD CONSTRUCTION)
17 02 Wood, glass and plastic
17 02 01 Wood
17 02 04* Glass, plastic and wood containing or contaminated with dangerous substances
19 WASTES FROM WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES, OFF-SITE WASTE WATER TREAT-
103
generally meaning wood which is only treated mechanically. But even this wood chemical composition can be changed due
to inappropriate handling
104
treatment in this case means varnish and paint not containing hazardous substances
105
the quantitative distribution of these waste wood streams has been indicated for Germany.
162
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
MENT PLANTS AND THE PREPARATION OF WATER INTENDED FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION AND WATER FOR INDUSTRIAL USE
19 12 Wastes from the mechanical treatment of waste (for example sorting, crushing,
compacting, pelletising) not otherwise specified
19 12 06* wood containing dangerous substances
19 12 07 wood other than that mentioned in 19 12 06
20 MUNICIPAL WASTES AND SIMILAR COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL
WASTES INCLUDING SEPARATELY COLLECTED FRACTIONS
20 01 Separately collected fractions
20 01 37* wood containing dangerous substances
20 01 38 wood other than that mentioned in 20 01 37
[EUROP 2002]
Depending on the treatment the wood has received in order to be sold, it can be
considered either as being hazardous or non-hazardous waste.
Wood preservatives in particular can be identified as hazardous components according to 91/689/EEC106, ANNEX II.
Further contaminants are heavy metals from coatings/staining, hardeners such as
ammonium chloride, formaldehydes and also flame retardants.
Table 63 shows the main sources for specific waste wood contamination
Table 63: Main source for the contamination of waste wood
Potential contaminant
Arsenic, As
Lead, Pb
Cadmium, Cd
Chlorine, Cl
Chrome, Cr
Fluorine, F
Copper, Cu
Lindane, HCH
Mercury, Hg
Nitrogen-compounds, N
Thallium, Tl
Zinc, Zn
Tin, Sn
Pentachlorophenol, PCP
Polychlorinated biphenyls, PCB
Benz(a)pyrene
Applied to the wood through
wood preservatives
paint
paint
coating
wood preservatives, paint
wood preservatives
wood preservatives
wood preservatives
wood preservatives
glue
paint
wood preservatives
paint
wood preservatives
fungicide
wood preservatives
[Lang et al 2000]
106
Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste
163
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Even though many of the above listed substances are not allowed to be used or are
restricted in use today, they are still present within the arising waste wood.
Wood containing hazardous substances would need to enter a different treatment
path than the one assessed here. Nevertheless, it is quite likely that a certain pollution load will also be present in waste wood destined for material recovery. In order
to show the variety of possible waste wood sources and their difference in the associated pollution load, analyses from industrial waste wood, particle boards and fruit
boxes are shown below.
4.11.3.3 Residues within industrial waste wood
Depending on the collection of the waste wood and its origin it can be mixed with
metal, plastics and paper and the proportion vary highly according to its source.
Table 64 gives exemplary the amount of foreign materials within industrial waste
wood.
Table 64: Exemplary weights of foreign materials within industrial waste
wood
Material
Weight %
Nails
0.06-3.4
Glass
0.03-0.05
Aluminium
0.03-0.1
Copper, brass
0.03-0.05
[Nussbaumer, Hasler]
The content of those materials varies highly and depends of the treatment and also
the origin of the wood.
4.11.3.4 Exemplary composition of particle boards
Within the assessed recovery chain two types of waste wood have been considered
to be accepted for the production of particle boards: untreated wood such as fruit
boxes, pallets and treated wood such as particle boards, Orientated Strand Boards
(OSB) and Medium Density Fibreboards (MDF). Impregnated wood is not accepted
and painted waste wood is accepted only if the plant has a cleaning line.
164
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
An analysis of the main composition of particle boards is shown in Table 65.
Table 65: Analysis of the main composition of particle boards
Coniferous wood
Deciduous wood
Particle boards
bonded by UF107
hardened by NH4Cl
See above but
hardened by
(NH4)2SO4
Chipboard bond by
PMDI108
[Baumbach et al]
Per mass percent dry wood
C
H
O
N
S
Cl
49.5-50.7
6.2
43.1-43.9 0.09-0.16
< 0.05
< 0.01
48.6-49 6.0-6.1
44.7
0.2
< 0.05
< 0.01
48
6
42
1.5-3.5
0.1
0.3
Minerals
0.5
0.5
0.6
48
6
42
1.5-3.5
0.3
0.1
0.6
49
6.5
43
0.6
0.1
0.05
0.8
A chemical analysis of fruit boxes and particle boards concerning contaminants from
paint and wood preservatives is presented in Table 66.
Table 66: Analytical data from particle boards and fruit boxes regarding
contaminants
Substance
mg/kg dm
Wood preservatives
Boron (B)
Hg
Cr
Cu
As
Pigments from paint
Cd
Titanium (Ti)
Zn
Pb
Nickel (Ni)
[Gras 2002]
Particle boards109
min-max
mean
min-max
Fruit boxes
mean
5-27
<0.05- <0.2
0.7-15.2
1.5-825
<d.l.110-3.0
14
< d.l.
4.6
24.4
0.6
<2.5
<0.01
<0.5-1.4
0.3-3.5
<1
<2.5
<0.01
0.7
1.9
<1
0.1-0.6
8.5-29.7
10-51
<2-46.3
<d.l.-359
0.3
18.3
26
16.6
3
<0.1-0.4
0.3-0.5
9-236
<2.5
0.3-1.6
<0.1
0.4
71
<2.5
0.9
In fact the waste wood used for the production of particle boards may contain a nonquantifiable mixture of post-consumer particle boards, OSB and MDF111 as well as fruit
boxes and pallets and presumably also, to a minor extent, other wooden elements.
107
108
109
110
111
urea-formaldehyde resin
Polymeric diphenylmethane diisocyanate resin
It was not clearly indicated if those particle boards were originally made 100% from virgin wood
d. l. = detectable limit
due to aesthetic reasons many producers prefer pallets and packaging wood instead of particle boards
165
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
No coherent chemical analysis for such a mixture of waste wood could be made
available.
Only the European Panel Federation (EPF) has set up limit values for recycling wood
upon delivery.
Table 67: EPF industry standard for delivery conditions of recycled wood112
Elements/Compounds
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
Hg
F
Cl
PCP
Benzo(a)pyrene (creosote)
Limit values (mg/kg recycled wood)
25
50
25
40
90
25
100
1000
5
0.5
[EPF 2002]
In order to have a comparison for a national solution, limiting values for wood chips
used in the manufacture of derived timber of the German waste wood ordinance are
shown in Table 68
112
Moisture content should not exceed 20% with a +/- tolerance of 5% relative to dry weight.
Contaminant content of 2% is considered as excessive.
166
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Table 68: Limit values for wood chips used in the manufacture of derived
timber products
[BMU 2002]
These two examples show that a specific load of contaminants is accepted for waste
wood to be used for the production of products. Furthermore the level of accepted
contamination is not yet consolidated Europe-wide.
Recovery Chain for waste wood
Unit operation 2
Unit operation 1
Waste Wood
Preselection
Sorting
Unit operation 4
M4
M3
M2
M1
Unit operation 3
mixing
Residues
I
Chipping
/sorting
Metals,
minerals
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Figure 67: Recovery chain for waste wood
167
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
4.11.3.5 Pre-selection:
The pre-selection is based on terms of trade between the supplier and the processing facility and excludes wood containing hazardous components.
4.11.3.6 M2:
The waste wood should be free of hazardous components.
4.11.3.7 Sorting
Batches of treated and untreated waste wood are sorted visually and manually for
foreign materials such as paper, plastics, metals etc.
4.11.3.8 M2:
The content of residues is reduced significantly through the sorting step.
4.11.3.9 Mixing
The waste wood is mixed with industrial residue wood and forest residues.
4.11.3.10
M3:
The proportion of the waste wood is 20% of the considered recovery chain113, 75%
for industrial residue and 5% for forest residues.
4.11.3.11
Chipping/sorting
The wood mixture is chopped into raw chips and simultaneously sorted by magnets
for metal clips etc. During the second comminution the final chip size is produced
and further sorted via magnets. Furthermore mineral impurities are removed by air
separation. The treatments following this step are regular production processes
which are not different from processes where only primary wood is introduced.
4.11.3.12
I:
Limit values for these chips are not available
4.11.4
Comparable products
The waste-specific properties/risks of the material between the unit operations of the
recovery chain could be compared with:
Reference 1: panel originating from virgin wood
113
the composition between industrial residues, primary wood and post-consumer wood varies highly and depends also on the
local situation of companies.
168
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Reference 2: virgin wood
Reference 3: panel made from a mixture of wood from different sources
4.11.4.1 Reference 1: Panel originating from virgin wood
Theoretically it would be appropriate to compare particle boards made from virgin
wood and industrial residues to those made also from waste wood. No reliable data
could be made available for panels made only from virgin wood and/or industrial
residues. Therefore this comparison is not possible.
4.11.4.2 Reference 2: Virgin/untreated Wood
Even Virgin wood can be contaminated with some pollutants. This contamination is
often caused by anthropogenic pollution of the environment and therefore the term
“virgin wood” is misleading and also missing a definition. The same is true for the
term untreated. Some sources define untreated wood as wood which has only been
“treated” mechanically.
As a consequence, the contamination of “virgin or untreated” wood is sometimes
lower than the maximum values for raw wood or forest wood.
Therefore, it is desirable to define clearly all possible terms and to join it to the
treatment which has already been carried out.
Additionally, the substances which are applied during the production process (e. g.
glues, hardener) are not present within virgin wood.
Taking all these considerations into account it does not seem appropriate to compare
particle boards made from waste wood and virgin wood.
Typical values for virgin wood materials, logging residues are indicated in Table 69.
169
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Table 69: Typical values for virgin wood materials, logging residues
Parameter
Unit
Typical value
Coniferous wood
Deciduous wood
(1.1.3)
(1.1.3)
Typical variation
Typical value
Typical variation
Ash
% w/w d
2
1–4
1,5
0,8 – 3
Gross calorific
value qgr,daf
MJ/kg daf
21
20,8 – 21,4
20
19,7 – 20,4
Net calorific
value qn,daf
MJ/kg daf
20
19,5 – 20,0
19
18,4 – 19,1
Carbon, C
w-% daf
52
50 - 53
52
50 – 53
Hydrogen, H
w-% daf
6,1
5,9 – 6,3
6,1
5,9 – 6,3
Oxygen, O
w-% daf
41
40 – 44
41
40 – 44
Nitrogen, N
w-% daf
0,5
0,3 – 0,8
0,5
0,3 – 0,8
Sulphur, S
w-% daf
0,04
0,01 – 0,08
0,04
0,01 – 0,08
Chlorine, Cl
w-% daf
0,01
< 0,01 – 0,04
0,01
< 0,01 – 0,02
Fluorine, F
w-% daf
Al
mg/kg d
Ca
mg/kg d
5 000
2 000 – 8 000
4 000
3 000 – 5 000
Fe
mg/kg d
K
mg/kg d
2 000
1 000 – 4 000
1 500
1 000 – 4 000
Mg
mg/kg d
800
400 – 2 000
250
100 – 400
Mn
mg/kg d
251
Na
mg/kg d
200
P
mg/kg d
500
Si
mg/kg d
3 000
Ti
mg/kg d
As
mg/kg d
0,3
Cd
mg/kg d
0,2
0,1
Cr
mg/kg d
Cu
mg/kg d
Hg
mg/kg d
0,03
0,02
Ni
mg/kg d
Pb
mg/kg d
3
5
V
mg/kg d
Zn
mg/kg d
120
75 - 300
100
20 – 200
300
200 – 10 000
150
75 – 250
Data is obtained from a combination of mainly Swedish, Finnish, Danish, Dutch and German research. The values aim to
describe properties that can be expected in Europe in general.
[CEN TC 335 2003]
170
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
4.11.4.3 Reference 3: Panel made from a mixture of wood from different
sources
Because panels of the assessed recovery chain are made from a specific mixture
from forest residues, industrial residue and post-consumer wood, analytical data for
such a product should be the basis for the comparable product. No reliable chemical
analyses of such a panel could be made available. The requirements new chipboard
has to fulfil are usually closely connected to their future function. The only environmental-specific requirements found are the ones from the EPF which can be considered as a code of practice (see explanation in Section 3.2.4)114.
Table 70: EPF industry standard for wood based panels containing recycled
wood
Elements/Compounds
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
Hg
F
Cl
PCP
Benzo(a)pyrene (creosote)
[EPF 2000] 115.
Maximum limit values (mg/kg per dry
panel)
25
50
25
40
90
25
100
1000
5
0.5
These limiting values are the same as the ones indicated in Table 67 concerning the
standard for delivery conditions of recycled wood [EPF 2002].
114
It was stated by the EPF that “the EPF standard has been adopted by all our members, which means companies in 23 European countries and almost 90% of all particle board production.”
115
According to EPF the limits refer to child contact articles intended to be sucked by children and are the same in EN 71.3
“Safety of toys” and limits for F, Cl, PCP and Creosote were added to them.
171
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
4.11.5
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Specific properties, potential impacts and risks
The following table describes the potential impacts and risks as described in the section about ‘Methodology’.
Table 71: Potential impacts and risks for recovered wood
M1 M2 M3 M4
Potential level of uncertainty
Uncertainty about composition
Uncertainty about impurities
Potential environmental impacts
Global warming
Acidification
Eutrophication
Ozone depletion
Photochemical ozone creation
Encroachment on natural areas
Eco-toxicological properties
Human toxicological properties
Potential safety risks
Fire risk
Mechanical risk
Biological risk
0
0
-1
-1
-4
-5
-4
-5
-5
-5
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
I
-
-
-
-
0
0
-0
-1
-2
-2
-2
-3
-3
-2
-4
-4
-5
-5
-5
0
0
0
-2
-4
-2
-4
-2
-5
-5
-
-
-
-
The criterion global warming was not evaluated as the potential risk does not change
along the treatment chain.
The criteria marked with "-" do not apply for this waste stream.
172
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
The figures below depict the results in graphical form.
Figure 68: Potential uncertainty of waste wood in the recovery chain
Figure 69: Potential environmental impacts of waste wood in the recovery
chain
173
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Figure 70: Potential safety risks of waste wood in the recovery chain
4.11.6
Conclusions
Here the recovery chain consists of four unit operations. It ends with a chipping and
sorting step. The influence of pre-selection on the reduction of the uncertainties and
the environment-related waste characteristics is here dependent to a particular degree on the source (the type cleanliness) of the delivered used wood. For this reason
the waste-specific characteristics (other than in the mixing step) are extensively reduced equally over the complete recovery chain.
A European code of practice has been established which limits the use of wood for
the particle board industry. Nevertheless, limiting values agreed on an ordinance
level of at least one EU Member State mostly allow only lower limit values.
In the case of waste wood the contamination still to be found, is generally productspecific and therefore accepted. Nevertheless no product standard indicating the environmental relevant components could be made available for comparative purposes.
174
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
5
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Summary and conclusions
Objective of the work in this part was to obtain a statement on at what point wastespecific risk potentials, from a technical-scientific aspect, are neutralised in selected
waste recovery chains.
For this, in agreement with the Commission, the wastes and recovery chains listed in
Table 72 were to be considered.
Table 72: Wastes and recovery chains considered within the scope of the
case studies
No Materials
.
1
Waste oil
Waste specification
Origin
Lubricant oil
2a
Paper/ cardboard
Paper/ cardboard
Separate collection,
repair shops, dismantler
Post-consumer
2b
Paper/ cardboard
Paper/ cardboard
Post-consumer
3
4a
Metals
Polymers
Ferrous metal scrap
Shredder light fraction
Scrap treatment
Scrap shredding
4b
5
Polymers
Shredder light fraction
Inert materials Mineral waste
6
Slag/ashes
Scrap shredding
Construction and demolition of buildings
Electric arc furnaces
7
Zinc-rich EAF filter dust
Electric arc furnaces
8
Fly ashes
Hard coal power plants
Used solvents from cleaning activities
Treated wood
Print shops, paint shops
9
Solvents
10
Waste wood
Production, postconsumer
Aim of the recovery
chain
Refineries – secondary oil
As EN 643 1.02 paper mill
– packaging and cardboard
As EN 643 1.11 paper mill
– graphic paper, sanitary
paper
EAF – secondary steel
Blast furnace – secondary
reduction agent
Methanol production
Road construction –
material
Road construction - material
Zinc plant – secondary
zinc
Cement process - cement
blending
Redistillation – secondary
solvents
Wood production– particle
board
In order to base the work on practice-oriented descriptions of the recovery chains
comprehensive research into quantity flows, the structure of existing recovery chains
and the status of individual treatment technologies and material compositions were
carried out. In addition, it was necessary to develop a methodology for the analysis
and representation of the development of the waste-specific characteristics in the
course of the recovery chains (see below).
175
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Different references were investigated in order to identify at which step of the recovery chain the waste specific environmental impacts re neutralised:
• technical requirements / specifications that are applied to input and / or output of
facilities,
• technical requirements or specifications that apply to comparable products.
5.1 Methodology
The waste-specific characteristics were subdivided into three areas:
a) the uncertainty about the material composition and the mixing together with
impurities,
A typical attribute of waste116 is the uncertainty about its precise composition.
This uncertainty comprises two categories:
• Uncertainty pertaining to material composition; compared to the original raw
material the composition of waste may be changed by degradation or decomposition as well as by impurities.
• Uncertainty pertaining to contamination with other substances/waste (impurities); depending on the collection system the waste can be contaminated
by other wastes.
The uncertainties may be systematically reduced at different stages of the recovery chain. The respective degree of remaining uncertainties can be described qualitatively (see Chapter 3.2, Figure 2).
b) the potential of environmental effects classified according to the effect categories of standardised LCAs,
Wastes - like products – have the potential to cause environmental impacts.
For a description of these, typical environmental impact categories are used
which also apply in Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) of products or for the assessment of production processes.
Another important environmental impact category, typical for wastes, is the
encroachment on to natural areas, which plays a particularly significant role
with large volume wastes and for landfilling.
116
In contrast to the usual situation with products
176
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
When assessing the potential environmental impacts it is important to consider the potential direct impact on the environment within the meaning of the
inherent (intrinsic) potential/property of the waste to cause harm. In principle
the assessment of those impact potentials refers to the methodology and the
information from the “Classification and Labelling” Directive 67/548/EEC and
1999/45/EC117 respectively with the difference that the exposition situation is
not taken into considerations.
During waste treatment there is a potential of indirect environmental impacts
from the wastes118. When assessing such indirect, environmental impacts in
LCAs, relevant “impact-equivalents” are calculated. For this purpose extensive
equivalent value tables are available.119
c) the potential risks for industrial safety with the treatment of wastes.
•
Safety precautions are of concern because in many cases waste is also handled in direct contact with workers. These safety risks are caused partly by the
waste composition and partly by impurities, mixed with the waste during collection.
While the assessment of potential environmental impacts has to take unfavourable release conditions into account, consideration of safety risks refers to
“normal” handling of waste/products. The respective degree of these potential
safety risks is qualitatively described along the different stages of the recovery
chain
The term ‘potential’ highlights the fact that the subject of the assessment is the inherent properties of the waste. The potential impacts may, on the one hand, become
relevant e.g. by improper handling of waste, whereas on the other hand, in a normal
case, they may be systematically reduced by a suitable recovery system.
The aim of waste management treatment is deliberately to reduce these risks and
the potential (negative) effects. Therefore, starting with the characteristics of the
respective objectively considered waste, the reduction of these waste characteristics
from treatment stage to treatment stage were presented semi-quantitatively.
117
Amended and replaced by 2001/60/EC
Inherent potential describes the risk which may occur in a worst case i.e. if no off-gas treatment is installed)
119
Compare. e.g. Annex 1 – Annex 8 of the BAT - Reference Document on Economics and Cross-Media effects, Draft Nov. 2002,
Chapter 2
118
177
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
In the developed method separate scales are applied for the qualitative characterisation of the changes regarding the potential level of uncertainties, the potential environmental impacts and the potential safety risks. The description for all potential
risks/impacts has the starting value ‘zero’. Decreases in the respective inherent risk
are shown in 20% steps of the whole reduction achieved over the whole treatment
chain. The point of lowest inherent risk achieved in the treatment chain is always
characterised as ‘-5’.
The recovery chains are respectively broken down into their individual unit operations. The start point of all recovery chains is here a pre-selection within the scope of
the acceptance inspection and quality assurance respectively of the wastes which are
applied to the recovery chain. The recovery chains end at the point where the recovered material replaces primary raw materials. The following Figure 71 shows this
schematically.
Figure 71: Description of the recovery chains
Description of recovery chain
Unit Operations and intermediates
Collection Recovery Chain
Pre-selection
waste
M1
Unit
Operation 1
Residuals
Production Chain
Treatment
M2
Unit
Operation 2
M3
Residuals
Unit
Operation 3
M4
Residuals
Further Unit
Operations
Residuals
Substitution of
Primary raw material
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Following today’s handling practice it is presumed with this that the waste-specific
risk potential is, at this point, reduced to a degree which is accepted for further use
in the subsequent production or utilisation chain. With that the waste-specific environmental risk potential considered has achieved its minimum at this point.
178
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Following specialist discussions with the stakeholders involved the method was further developed within the context of the first presentation of the methods in July
2003. In this way the relative (qualitative) reduction contribution of the individual
treatment stages to the overall reduction in the recovery chain is now represented
consistently in 20% steps. Through this, on one hand, the discussed problem of
missing detailed data on the material compositions between the individual unit operations could be solved. On the other hand, false interpretations of an avoidable
absolute scaled representation of very different waste specific risks are also avoided.
5.2 General results
The planned investigations could be matched operationally with the methodology
sketched. Implementation produced clear results and statements:
•
The waste-specific characteristics within the considered recovery chains
achieve in general their minimum at the end of the recovery chain. This means
that such waste-specific characteristics are present up to the respective last
treatment operation. Only in Cases 6 and 7 is the minimum achieved at unit operations that only change the shape of the materials before a substitution of primary raw materials is accomplished.
•
The testing and determination of the acceptance criteria within the scope of
pre-selection has a very high significance for the reduction of uncertainties. This
is the case in particular, with wastes with a heterogeneous source (e.g. with
street collection).
•
The uncertainty about the composition of the wastes as well as about the contaminants achieves its minimum in many cases already before the end of the recovery chain.
•
The potential environment-related effects are significantly reduced generally
continuously in a later stage of the recovery chain. They achieve their minimum
usually following the last treatment step in the chain.
•
The potential safety risks in the investigation prove to be less expressive, as
they are influenced to a particular degree by details of the plant configuration and
method of operation.
•
Only the unit operations separation and conversion lead to a reduction of uncertainties and/or a reduction of the potential environment-related effects.
•
Other unit operations, such as mixing or the change of the shape (comminution, evaporation...) do not influence these waste-specific characteristics. They
179
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
can, nevertheless, have an influence on the industrial safety-related characteristics of the wastes.
The comparison of the waste-specific characteristics with the different ‘references’
did not lead to additional findings, as in several case studies references with the effectiveness of a EN standard including environmental issues were missing. Most of
the times comparable pre-products and primary raw materials were defined by enterprise standard or code of practice neither incorporating environmental issues.
Figure 72 shows a prototypical progress of the waste-specific characteristics in a recovery chain.
Recovery chain
Treatment I
Preselection
Treatment III
Cleaning
Treatment II
Separation
Comminution
0
Potential Level of Risk
-1
Potential environmental impacts
-2
-3
Potential safety risks
Uncertainty
-4
-
5
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Figure 72: Prototypical progress of the development of the waste-specific
risk potential
As usually normal, the uncertainty about the composition already drops off with the
first (pre-) sorting step. The environment-related waste characteristics are, however,
reduced relevantly first in the later treatment steps. The risks for industrial safety lie
nearly always between both other areas.
180
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
5.3 Results from case studies
The composition of the wastes and materials within the investigated recovery chains
varied broadly. A neutralisation of the waste specific environmental issues - if at all can not be stated for every possible situation and composition. The statements included in this section can only be valid for wastes with a composition as taken into
consideration. However, it must be concluded that due to the wide range of possible
compositions of one and the same waste (e.g. according to the EWC) general statements on a European level about the neutralisation of waste specific impacts are
problematic.
Specific findings of the case studies are shown below:
Case 1 – Re-refining of waste oils
The processing of waste lubricant oil to secondary oils is a good example for a complex and long treatment chain with 5-6 unit operations. They end with a finishing
step, after which the basic oil recovered can again be used in lubricant production.
None of these treatment steps has a particularly dominant influence on the reduction
of the waste-specific characteristics. In this way they are reduced evenly over the
whole treatment chain.
Plant-independent standards, which would make a strong enough statement on the
potential environment-related effects of the “secondary” basic oils and thus would
represent a practical comparison parameter for the evaluation of the materials from
the recovery chain (Reference 2), are not available.
The qualitative analysis shows that typical waste properties (potential risks and impacts) are diminished in steps during the recovery chain from unit operation to unit
operation. It is only after defractioning or finishing (for the area of human toxicology) that a stable level is reached. Only the global warming potential is not influenced during the treatment chain120.
120
Indeed in this case it does not seem to be a waste-specific property.
181
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Case 2 - Recovery of paper and cardboard
While with the treatment chain, which aims at products with lower quality requirements (EN 643 1.02), the recovery chain ends after five unit operations. This, with
qualitatively high value target products (EN 643 1.11), is the case first after seven
unit operations. The absolute scope of the reduction of the environment-related
waste characteristics overall remains slight.
Paper fibres are mainly channelled into the paper production at the same location
directly at the conclusion of the recovery chain. The Waste Paper Standards of EN
643 are not applicable as comparison standard (Reference 2). On one hand they do
not relate to the material after the end of the recovery chain (sorted and (pre-)
cleaned paper fibres) and, on the other hand, contain no quantified statements on
disruptive or contaminant substance contents.
Only few (analytical) data are available concerning the composition of paper in the
recovery chain; data for primary raw material are not available. Using qualitative
data the developed methodology clearly describes at which points of the recovery
chain the environmental impact potentials are reduced and where they reach their
respective minimum compared to the primary raw material.
General standards of the waste paper so far are not suitable for use as reference for
environmental impact potentials for paper fibre as they refer to the input composition
of waste paper not to the fibre. Parameters, which are used as indicators for the description of the environmental impact potentials, such as the amount of anti-foaming
agents and biocides, dyes, glues/adhesives, are not included in these standards.
Case 3 – Ferrous metals scrap to electric arc furnaces
The recovery chain ends with the EAF. The processing of collected scrap for remelting in EAF consists of four unit operations. While the uncertainty about the composition is mainly cut back through the pre-sorting, the environment-related wastespecific risks are first reduced by the separator step in the shredder.
The comparison of the environmental risk potential with primary raw materials or
pre-products came to the finding that scrap metals have higher risks with some parameters. With this, however, it has to be taken into account that the comparison of
scrap with ores or pig iron is methodically problematic. Other comparison standards
at European level are, nevertheless, not available. Thus the European Steel Scrap
Specification does not have the binding character of a standard, rather describes expected values. In addition, there is a lack of environment-related parameters or they
cannot be operationalised (e.g. PCB and other organic pollutants).
182
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Case 4- SLF in the VW-SiCon process and SLF gasification at the “Schwarze
Pumpe” recovery centre
VW-Sicon
The treatment chain of the VW-SiCon process ends with the third step, where dust
and fine particles are separated from the “Granulate”. The environment-related
waste risks (uncertainty, ecotoxicology, human toxicology) essentially are reduced
through the first treatment step, the mechanical separation of the SLF.
The “Granulate” which will be introduced into a Blast furnace to substitute heavy oil
or coke. In comparison with primary raw material this “Granulate” shows in most of
the cases higher values for parameters with environmental relevance (e.g. some
heavy metals). However, depending on the primary raw material chosen (coal, heavy
oil) or the performance of the VWSicon installation the values may be also lower than
in the reference material. European normative references for the composition and
characteristics of “Granulate” are not available.
SVZ
The recovery chain of the “Schwarze Pumpe” process it ends after the purification of
the gas from gasification (unit operation 6).
The environment-related waste risks are essentially reduced by the gasification and
the conversion. Several potential environmental risks of SLF could not be evaluated
due to changes of the character of the material along the recovery chain. With the
change from solid organic material into gaseous inorganic material the risk characteristic changes significantly.
In addition several risks are due to a chemical structure which is also characteristic
for the product and can therefore not be evaluated as waste-specific risks.
Case 5 – Mineral waste from construction and demolition of buildings for
road construction
The treatment chain consists of five unit operations. As one is concerned with a succession of very similar separation steps the uncertainty changes and the environment-related waste characteristics change largely synchronously, in steps over the
complete treatment chain.
183
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Mineral waste from construction and demolition sites is quite a unique material as
some of the contamination is already present within the product (see Section
4.6.2.2) and becomes relevant for use as a construction material.
No European input standards exist for mineral waste used for road construction, only
national governments have taken measures and developed limiting values for mineral
aggregates. The requirements set out by the national governments show the different kinds of substances which are regulated for substances to be used for construction.
Even though the waste-specific risk of mineral waste from construction and demolition sites is minimised throughout the treatment, the degree of reduction and therefore a comparison at a European level cannot be determined.
Case 6 – Electric arc furnace slag for road construction
The recovery chain consists of two unit operations only. A pre-selection in an isolated
unit operation does not take place. The material characteristics are influenced via
additional materials already before the creation of wastes (within the EAF process).
Only the separation of disruptive substances with the screening step following comminution (“crushing”) of the slag leads to the change of the waste-specific characteristics.
Thus the minimum is achieved already before the last treatment stage, if the material is mixed.
Possible contamination (e.g. heavy metals) is not minimised and also remains when
the slag has actually been used as a construction material.
So far the use of EAF slag and possible restrictions are regulated nationally in the
context of national water and soil protection policy but no EN standard including environmental parameters or a similar reference is available.
Case 7 – Filter dust from electric arc furnace in zinc production
The recovery chain consists of five unit operations. It ends with a drying step following leaching. This final treatment step leads to no further reduction of the considered
waste-specific characteristics.
No reference document for comparison purposes exists at a European level which
covers all relevant environmental issues.
184
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Case 8 – Fly ash from hard coal power stations in cement blending
Here the recovery chain is very short. It consists of two unit operations only. Only
with the checking and, possibly, exfiltration of the delivered charges in the course of
pre-selection does an influencing/reduction of the waste-specific characteristics take
place.
A comparison of hard coal power plant fly ash with the Reference 1 products (that
leads to the production of the assessed waste) does not make sense in this case.
A comparison with a Reference 2 product is only possible with natural sand used as a
filler (also the functional equivalence is not exactly the same). There is a EN standard
for the secondary (pre-)product that substitutes the primary (pre-)product natural
sand. However, the Standard does not cover all waste specific aspects (only chlorine
and the sum parameter loss on ignition) thus toxic properties such as heavy metal
content and organic compounds of fly ash in comparison with natural sand are
higher. This leads to the conclusion that the recovery chain does not neutralise the
waste-specific properties/risks.
Concerning the comparison with Reference 3 (input definitions) it can be stated that
there is no general input definition. The code of practice shows that fly ash compared to other input materials has relevantly higher heavy metal contents. Thus it
can not be stated that the waste-specific properties/risks are neutralised.
Case 9 – Solvents from cleaning operations to redistillation
Here also the recovery chain consists of only two unit operations. In addition to the
pre-selection the distillation as separation step also influences the waste-specific
characteristics significantly.
For universal cleaning agents resulting from the assessed recovery chain there is no
comparable product (that leads to the production of the assessed waste). The waste
is produced by solvents that meet the characteristics for certain users like solvents
for ink dilution. This implies a low range of composition. The output of the recovery
chain has characteristics which could be compared with those products on the market made for general cleaning activities but not with the products that led to the production of the assessed waste.
Standards for universal cleaning agents do not exist; there are solely legal requirements concerning the PCB and halogen content. General input specifications do not
exist either.
185
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Some waste-specific properties/risks (especially the eco-toxicological and human
toxicological properties) are systematically decreased, but other waste-specific properties such as the aromatics content and the water content depend on the desired
output quality and may not have changed.
Case 10 – Treated wood to particle board production
Here the recovery chain consists of four unit operations. It ends with a chipping and
sorting step. The influence of pre-selection on the reduction of the uncertainties and
the environment-related waste characteristics is here dependent to a particular degree on the source (the type cleanliness) of the delivered material used. For this reason the waste-specific characteristics (other than in the mixing step) are extensively
reduced equally over the complete recovery chain.
A European code of practice has been established which limits the use of wood for
the particle board industry. Nevertheless, limit values agreed at an ordinance level of
at least one European Member State mostly allow only lower limit values.
In the case of waste wood the contamination still to be found, is generally productspecific and therefore accepted. Nevertheless, no product standard indicating the
environmental relevant components could be made available for comparative purposes.
5.4 Comparison with possible “Reference products”
The waste specific properties/risks at the various stages of the recovery chain were
compared to different materials or specifications (‘references’):
1.
Composition of original products from which the waste derives,
2.
Composition of substituted materials,
3.
Input requirements / specifications of facilities that directly use the material
from the recovery chain.
186
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
The following figure visualises the different possibilities of such comparable “products” or reference “standards” at a glance:
Primary
material
Reference 3
Input definitions
Reference 2
-Product standards
-Product declarations
Recovery Chain
Treatment
Pretreatment
Original
product
Use
phase
Reference 1
-Product standards
-Product declarations
Waste
M1
Unit operation
1
Residuals
M2
Unit operation M3
2
Residuals
Unit operation
3
Secondary
material
Residuals
(Recovered material
Standards, declarations)
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Figure 73: ‘References’ for comparison
If compared with the original products from which the waste derives (Reference 1), it
becomes obvious that the respective products are often complex and comprise manifold components. Their characteristics and inherent environmental risks differ from
the output of the recovery chain. Thus comparisons deliver only little orientation.
In the cases of References 2 and 3 it is, as a rule, possible to expect a functional
equivalence to the replaced or potentially replaced primary raw materials or (pre)products. In principle, this is suitable as a basis for the applied relative scale.
The case studies showed that an assessment of waste specific potential risks is problematic, if the compared pre-product is made from different raw materials. Figure 73
gives a general overview of this fact. The numbers used within this figure refer to the
text above.
187
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Use phase
Production
Production
1
Raw material A
2/3
Product B
Recovery chain
Product A
?
Raw material B
Ins titute for E nvironmental S trategies
Figure 73: The problem of diverging types of basis materials
With the background of the requirement that a fully comparable functional equivalent
has to be chosen this problem occurred in particular in those cases where unspecific
properties (energy content or volume) of the recovered materials were used in the
target production chain.
With regard to data situation comparison with primary raw materials was problematic
in those cases where the primary raw material has a wide range of possible compositions. This was the case for example for iron ore and zinc concentrates where no
sensible description of average compositions can be elaborated (especially not with
regard to hazardous substances, which are of relevance for the assessment of waste
specific risk potentials). In addition it has to be taken into consideration that the
composition of marketed ores changes with the time and the market situation.
Poorer ore will be mined for example when the prices for iron content rise.
In another case (SVZ ‘Schwarze Pumpe’) comparison with substituted primary raw
material was not possible because the output of the treatment chain was very specific and no general description of the substituted primary raw material was available.
188
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
With direct further processing of the materials from the recovery chain as input of a
subsequent production process (Reference 3), as a rule, the existing input requirements of the subsequent process are achieved precisely. Other findings would
signify that superior or inferior qualities were produced. In individual economic logic
for this the treatment plant operator would draw attention to faults in the process
control or the process management. Comparisons here lead to a clearly predictable
result.
In cases where the output of a recovery chain can be used for the substitution of
primary raw materials in various subsequent processes, a methodical comparison
with the actual material requirements on such a secondary raw material (Reference
2) is necessary. In the existing product declarations or material standards for such
secondary materials, there was a lack of sufficiently differentiated environmentrelated parameters which make a direct comparison possible.
With the employment in actual plants these materials nevertheless in many cases
meet the plant requirements. With this, the material produced also meets precisely
the requirements of the various planned recovery processes
As a basis for the description of properties, specifications or composition of the references standards are of importance. Existing standards differ, not least, by their
authoritative/binding character. According to ISO/IEC Guide 2 a standard is a “document established by consensus and approved by a recognised body, that provides for
common and repeated use, rules, guidelines or characteristics for activities or their
results, aimed at the achievement of the optimum degree of order within a given
context”.
With the background of the discussion of the Waste Framework Directive it is necessary that the references are effective within the whole European Union. Applicability
of national or enterprise standards is limited with this background. The following table illustrates different types of “standards” and the stakeholders involved in their
elaboration, adoption and application procedure.
189
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Table 73: Standards and 'Standards'
Enterprise
Standard
Code of
practice
Standard
Public procurement
specification
Regulation
Elaboration
Enterprise
Sector
Interested
parties
Interested
parties
Authorities
Adoption
Enterprise
Sector
Consensus
Validation
Authorities
Authorities
Application
Enterprise
Sector(s)
Economic
actors
Economic
actors
Economic
actors
Voluntary
Public procurement
Obligation
[Jeanson 2002]
In several case studies references with the effectiveness of a EN standard were missing. Most of the times comparable pre-products and primary raw materials (reference
2) were defined by enterprise standard or code of practice.
In some cases European-wide specifications exist but do not have the same binding
character as standards (e.g. the European Steel Scrap System ESSS). However, with
regard to the assessment of waste specific impacts this was of lower importance
than the fact, that in most of the cases environmental aspects were not covered by
the specifications or standards or includes requirements that can not be operationalised (e.g. missing quantification). The ESSS for example does not cover the content
of organic hazardous substances and does not quantify a maximum content of heavy
metals. In some cases regional standards exist which cover more environmental aspects (e.g. Austrian Ö-Norm for scrap, which includes references to the national
chemical law and a limit value for PCB). However, their applicability has a regional
limitation.
Another problem with regard to references was that a close and homogeneous connection between specifications / standards and the respective European environmental policy areas were missing. Additionally, in some cases several (sometimes
different) national regulations exist which were not reflected in the respective European specifications/standards (e.g. for the use of mineral wastes as construction material).
190
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
The following table gives some examples with regard to possible references and
standards.
Table 74: Exemplary findings with regard to references and standards
Case study
Waste oil
References
1 motor oil
2 base oil
3 direct further use
Waste paper
1
2
3
1
2
Ferrous scrap
not applicable
not available
not available
not applicable
iron ore, pig iron
3 Scrap specifications
SLF, VWSicon
1 not applicable
2 coal, oil
3 not available
Standards / comments
missing environmental aspects in existing standards
missing environmental aspects in existing standards
only enterprise standards exist where environmental aspects are missing
/
no standard exist; specific fibres are not traded
no general input specifications defined
comparison does not lead to sensible results
comparison not possible due to missing possibilities of representative description of the composition of primary raw
material and the fact that iron ore and pig iron are not
totally functional equivalences to secondary steel
missing environmental aspects in European Steel Scrap
Specifications (ESSS); ESSS has no binding character
predominantly codes of practice and terms of trade are
applied, different results depending on chosen coal/oil
no European wide standards/specifications available
191
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
6
Institute for Environmental Strategies
References
AGOR 2003
AGOR Holding, http://www.bus-ag.de/seiten/
geschaeftsfelder/index_geschaeft_stahl.html, Köln, 2003.
Asturiana 2003
Asturiana de Zinc, Mr Rodermund, personal communication,
Nordenham, 2003.
BAT -Document
Reference Document on Economics and Cross-Media effects,
Draft Nov. 2002, Chapter 2
Baumann 1994
„Papierchemikalien, Daten und Fakten zum Umweltschutz“,
ISBN 3-540-57593-6, Springer Verlag, Hamburg 1994.
Baumbach, G. Struschka, M.
Erforderliche Brennstoffeigenschaften holzartiger Biomasse
für den Einsatz in Kleinfeuerungsanlagen unter 1 MW thermischer Leistung, Universität Stuttgart
BaWü 2000
Umweltplan Baden-Württemberg, Stuttgart 2000
http://www.uvm.badenwuerttemberg.de/abt2/umweltplan/text/umpl.htm
05.03.2003
unter
vom
Befesa 2003
Befesa Medio Ambiente S.A, homepage information,
http://www.befesa.es, Madrid, 2003.
Biermann, J.J.P. and Voogt, N.
A conversation process producing valuable mineral products
from de inking sludge, CDEM Holland BV 2003
BRE 1993
Guideline for the Assessment of Environmental exposure to
Chemicals used in the Production and Use of Paper. Building
Research Establishment (BRE), Garston, Watford, UK.
Bref-Document on Pulp and Paper
Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC), Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the Pulp
and Paper Industry, December 2001
Brucker 1999
„Die Erfolgsstory des Faserstoffs Altpapier“, Allgemeine Papier Rundschau, Editorial 9/99, Heusenstamm.
BRV 2003
Österreichischer Baustoff Recycling Verband, Richtlinie für
Recycling Baustoffe, 5th Edition, Ueberreuter Print und Digimedia, Wien
Building Material Decree 1999
Text and explanatory notes, Sdu Uitgevers The Hague,
http.www.minvrom.nl
BUS 2003
B.U.S Commercial Services GmbH, homepage information,
http://www.bus-commercial.de, Duisburg, 2003.
BVA 2002
Bundesverwaltungsamt „Recyclingpapier ist die erste Wahl“,
INFO 1692, Juni 2002 unter http://www.bva.bund.de/ aufgaben/win/beitraege/00145/ vom 04.03.2003
192
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
BVDM 2003
Bundesverband Druck und Medien unter www.bvdm.sw vom
03.03.2003
CEN 2003
TC 335 Solid biofuels, Template for the preparation of CEN
standards version 1.3, March 2003
CEPI 2002
10 year statistical summary, a decade of achievement
CEPI 2003
The sources of recovered paper and board and the structure
of the collection systems in Europe. REC/091/03, Brussels.
Chia-Cheng 2002
Abfallarme Verwertung von Stahlwerkstäuben (Low-Dust
Recovery of Steelwork Dust), Chia-Cheng Wu et. al, conference „Aufbereitung und Recycling“ (preparation and recycling), 13./14.11., UVR-FIA, Freiberg, 2002.
CL BREF 2000
Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) – Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the Cement
and Lime Manufacturing Industries, Brussels, 2000.
CONCAWE, 1996
"Collection and disposal of used lubricating oil", Concawe
Report No. 5/96,CONCAWE - the oil companies 'European
organisation for environment, health and safety. Brussels,
1996
Cost E 31, 2002
Management of recovered Wood
DBU 1997
Janke, D., et. al.: Verwertung von ölkontaminierten Walzzunderschlämmen und Shreddermüll über Hochöfen, Freiburg, 1997
Decopaint 2002
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of
the Council on the limitation of emissions of volatile organic
compounds due to the use of organic solvents in decorative
paints and varnishes and vehicle refinishing products and
amending Directive 1999/13/EC/* COM/2002/0750 final COD 2002/0301 */ COM(2002)750, Brussels, 23.12.2002.
DIN-EN 643
Europäische Liste der Standardsorten für Altpapier und Pappe, März 2002
EEA 2002
Review of selected waste streams, technical report 69
EEA Report 1999
Hazardous waste generation in EEA member states countries, EEA Report, 1999.
EFR 2001
Draft European Specifications for end-of-life goods as shredder infeed (v.7), Brussels, 2001
Eikelboom, Ruwiel, Goumans 2003:
The Building Materials Decree: an example of a Dutch regulation based on the potential impact of materials on the environment, in: WASCON, 2003: Waste Materials in Construction, Conference papers
EN 197 2000/2001
European Standard on cement, CEN, Brussels, 2000/2001.
193
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
EN 450 1995
European Standard on fly ash for cement, CEN, Brussels,
1995.
EPF 2000
The use of recycled wood for wood-based panels
EPF 2002
EPF standard for delivery conditions of recycled wood
EPRI 1993
EPRI Center for Materials Production (editor): Electric Arc
Furnace Dust – 1993 Overview, CMP Report No. 93-1, 1993.
Erhard, K. 1994
PTS-Forschungsbericht (Research Report) PTS-FB 18/94
Erhard, Klaus, 1994:
Charakterisierung von Minderen Altpapierqualitäten im Hinblick auf ihre stoffliche Verwertung außerhalb der Papierindustrie, PTS-Forschungsbericht PTS-FB 18/94, PTS Verlag
München
ESIG 2003
European Solvents Industry Group, online resource center
on solvents, internet information, www.esig.org, Brussels,
2003.
EUROFER 2003
Eurofer - European Confederation of Iron and Steel Industries, personal communication, Brussels, 2003.
EUROFER EAF 1997
European Confederation of Iron and Steel Industries – Environmental Committee – Task Group Electric Arc Furnace
Steelmaking Document on “Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking”, Brussels, 1997
EUROP 2002
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
COMMISSION DECISION of 3 May 2000 replacing Decision
94/3/EC establishing a list of wastes pursuant to Article 1(a)
of Council Directive 75/442/EEC on waste and Council Decision 94/904/EC establishing a list of hazardous waste pursuant to Article 1(4) of Council Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste, (2000/532/EC), OJ L 226, 6.9.2000, p. 3,
consolidated text, 1.01.2002
EUROP 2002
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities:
COMMISSION DECISION of 3 May 2000 replacing Decision
94/3/EC establishing a list of wastes pursuant to Article 1(a)
of Council Directive 75/442/EEC on waste and Council Decision 94/904/EC establishing a list of hazardous waste pursuant to Article 1(4) of Council Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste, (2000/532/EC), OJ L 226, 6.9.2000, p. 3,
consolidated text, 1.01.2002
European Commission 1995
Council Directive of July 1995 on Waste 75/442/EEC
194
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
European Commission 2003
Technical Guidance Document on Risk Assessment in support of Commission Directive 93/67/EEC on Risk Assessment
for new notified substances Commission Regulation (EC) No
1488/94 on Risk Assessment for existing substances Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market
Part IV
European Commission, 2003a
Euroslag 2003
„Draft Reference Document on Best Available Techniques for
the Waste Treatments Industries, Institute for Prospective
Technological Studies, European IPPC Bureau, Sevilla Febr.
2003
http://www.euroslag.org/pages/use.html
Euroslag pers com 2003
E-mail from 13.10.2003
F.I.R., n. y.
Federation Internationale du Recyclage: Recommendation
Guidelines for Quality Assessment of Recycled Building Materials
FGSV 1999
Forschungsgesellschaft für Straßen-Verkehrswesen Arbeitsgruppe Mineralstoffe im Straßenbau,Merkblatt über die Verwendung von Eisenhüttenschlacken im Straßenbau
FGSV 2000
Forschungsgesellschaft für Straßen- und VerkehrswesenArbeitsgruppe Mineralstoffe im Straßenbau, 2000: Technische Lieferbedingungen für Mineralstoffe im Straßenbau.Gesteinskörnungen und Werksteine im Straßenbau, TL
Min-StB 2000, FGSV No. 613, FGSV Verlag, Köln
FGSV 2000
Forschungsgesellschaft für Straßen- und VerkehrswesenArbeitsgruppe Mineralstoffe im Straßenbau, 2000: Technische Lieferbedingungen für Mineralstoffe im Straßenbau.Gesteinskörnungen und Werksteine im Straßenbau, TL
Min-StB 2000, FGSV No. 613, FGSV Verlag, Köln
Frada 1996
New Treatment Process for Dust from Electrical Steelmaking
Plants, J.-M. Frada, United Nations, Working Party on Steel,
Seminar on the Processing, Utilisation and Disposal of Waste
in the Steel Industry, 3.-6. June, Balatonszéplak (Hungary),
1996.
Geppert 2002
Zinc recycling – closing the life cycle, U. Geppert/Befesa
Medio Ambiente S.A., http://www.befesa.es/ingles/
negocios/descarga/Zinc%20recycling.doc, Madrid, 2002.
GesPaRec 2003
Statistiken
zum
Papierrecycling,
unter
http://www.gesparec.de vom 03.03.2003
Holzabfälle – Status September 2002, Jahrestagung Berlin,
www.bdsv.de/aktuell/jata/02_holz.php
Görisch U., 2002
Göttsching 1998
Prof. Dr. Lothar Göttsching, Institut für Papierfabrikanten,
Technische Hochschule Darmstadt; Vortrag auf dem Internationalen Altpapiertag, Allgemeine Papier Rundschau
22/1998, Heusenstamm
195
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Gras, B. 2002
Schadstoffe in Altholz - Hamburger Umweltbericht, ISSN
0179-8510
Hamm, U. 2000
Final fate from recovered paper processing and non-recycled
paper products in: Fapet Oy (publisher) 2000: Recycled Fibre and De inking, in Papermaking Science and Technology,
Book 7, Jyväskylä
Hamm, U. 2002
Presentation Cleaning agents for wires and felts, Zell Cheming-FA Chemical Additives,
Properties and Processing of Particulate By-Products from
the Iron and Steel Industry, A. Hartwell, United Nations,
Working Party on Steel, Seminar on the Steel Industry and
Recycling, 24.-27. April, Düsseldorf, 1995.
Hartwell 1995
Harz Products 2003
Typical composition of Waelz oxide (without leaching), HarzMetall GmbH, internet information, http://www.harzmetall.de, Goslar, 2003.
Harz-Metall 2003
Waelzoxid, Safety Data Sheet, internet information,
http://www.harz-metall.de, Goslar, 29.07.02.
Hedberg, 2001
Dr. Jan Hedberg: „Nationale Bestimmungen der 15 EUMitgliedsstaaten für das Sammeln und die Verwertung von
Altöl“, in Müllhandbuch, Berlin Lfg. 6/01
Die Rückgewinnung von Zink und Blei aus Stäuben der Elektrostahlerzeugung (The Recovery of Zinc and Lead from
Dusts from Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking), manuscript of
B.U.S. Bercelius Umwelt Service AG, Duisburg, 1997.
Hoffmann 1997
Hoffmann, M. 1997
Die Rueckgewinnung von Zink und Blei aus Staeuben der
Elektrostahlerzeugung, Manuskript of B.U.S. Bercelius Umwelt Service AG, D-Dusiburg (1997)
I&S BREF 2001
Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) - Best
Available Techniques Reference Document on the Production
of Iron and Steel, European Commission, Brussels, 2001.
IEA 2002
Trends in environmental control for coal fired power generation in Europe, I. Smith, IEA Coal Research/U.K., presentation of the International Symposium on Advanced Clean Coal
Technology 18.09., Tokyo, 2002.
IGINDA 2001
Position und Entwicklung des Digitaldruck-Marktes, Girgis &
Schumacher, Mainz 2001
IISI 2002
International Iron and Steel Institute: World Steel in Figures,
Brussels, 2002
IISI 2003
International Iron and Steel Institute: Statistical Yearbook
2003, Brussels, 2003
196
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
INFRAS 1998
ISAH 1997
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Bewertung ökologischer Lebensläufe von Zeitungen und
Zeitschriften; Projekt der Unternehmen Axel Springer Verlag
AG (Druck und Verlag), Stora (Forst, Zellstoff, Papier), Canfor (Forst, Zellstoff), Wissenschaftliche Beratung: INFRAS,
Zürich, 1998
pers.com 2001
IZA 1999
Zinc recycling, EUROFER/IZA-Europe (European Confederation of Iron and Steel Industries/International Zinc Association Europe), Brussels, 1999.
IZA 2003
Online guide to world zinc (2003 edition),
http://www.iza.com/zgd_org/HTM/zgd2003.htm, IZAInternational Zinc Association Europe, Brussels, 2003.
Kola 1993
Steel Industry Dust – Solving a Problem by Recycling, R.
Kola, publication of B.U.S. AG, Frankfurt, 1993.
Krüger 2001
Sachbilanz Zink (Input output balance of zinc), J. Krüger et
al., RWTH, Aachen, 2001.
LAGA
Länderarbeitsgemeinschaft Abfall: Anforderungen an die
stoffliche Verwertung von mineralischen Reststoffen/Abfällen, Technische Regeln
Lang et al, 2000
Altholz - Gefahr für den Rohholzabsatz, Universität Hamburg
Ordinariat für Holztechnologie
MinVrom, n. y.
The Ministry's brochure on the Decree in: WASCON, 2003:
Waste Materials in Construction, Conference papers
NFM BREF 2001
Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) - Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the NonFerrous Metals Industries, European Commission, Brussels,
2001.
NRW-LUA 2003
AIDA – statistical online data on waste, http://www.nrwluawebapps.de/, Landesumweltamt (LUA) North RhineWestfalia, Essen, 2003.
Nussbaumer P, Hasler T.
Brennstoffeigenschaften und Anforderungen an die Feuerungstechnik und Abgasreinigung für die Nutzung von Industrierest- und Altholz
Ökopol 2001
Ökologische Aspekte der Aufbereitung von Stahlwerksstäuben in Drehrohröfen (Ecological aspects of EAF dust recovery in rotary kilns), K. Sander/J. Lohse, Ökopol, Hamburg,
2001.
Ökopol, 1997
"Mineralöl-Raffinerie Dollbergen, Belastungsgutachten und
ökobilanzielle Bewertung der Altölaufbereitung - 2. Teilbericht: Ökobilanzielle Bewertung", Ökopol Institut für Ökologie und Politik GmbH im Auftrag des Niedersächsischen
Umweltministeriums, Hamburg, 1997
Ökopol/BAUM 1997
Beratungsprogramm zur Reststoffvermeidung undverwertung in Baden-Württemberg- Untersuchungen von
197
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Druckereien- Branchengutachten Teil B, Ökopol/B.A.U.M.
Consult, Hamburg, 1997.
Ordinance on the Management of Waste Wood 2002
http://www.bmu.de/files/wastewood_ordinance.pdf
PIRA International 1991
Rentz 1999
Paper Recycling Industry: Review of Processes and Effluent
Compositions. Prepared for the UK Department of the Environment.
Exemplary Investigation into the State of Practical Realisation of Integrated Environmental Protection within the Metal
Industry and Development of General Requirements, O.
Rentz et al., DFIU, Karlsruhe, 1999.
Rentz/Martel 1998
Analyse der Schwermetallströme in Steinkohlefeuerungen –
Einfluß der Kohlesorte und des Lastzustandes, O. Rentz/Ch.
Martel, Deutsch-Französisches Institut für Umweltforschung
(DFIU)/Universität Karlsruhe, Projekt Europäisches Forschungszentrum für Maßnahmen zur Luftreinhaltung - PEF
report 496001, Karlsruhe, 1998.
Resolve 2003
Rethmann Resolve, written communication 11.12., Braunschweig, 2003.
Robin Wood
Mehr Recyclingapapier, Initiative 2000 plus, Hamburg 2003
(div. written and oral. communication).
Optimisation of scrap recycling routes for environment protection; in: Encosteel – Steel for Sustainable Development,
Conference Papers, June 16-17 1997 Sweden; IISI Brussels,
1997
Romelot, P. 1997
Rudolph 2000
Pavoß, T.:Untersuchungen zur Aufbereitung und Verwertung
von Shredderleichtfraktion aus der Behandlung von Altkarossen in Shredderanlagen, Witten-Herdecke, 2000
SBA 2003
Statistisches Bundesamt, Informationen von Frau Grünbacher, 14.02.2003
Schiemann, J. 1995:
Untersuchungen des Sammelschrottes auf PCB-Quellen und
Entwicklung geeigneter Vorbehandlungsmaßnahmen, Berlin
(UBA), 1995
Schultmann, Renz 2000
The state of deconstruction in Germany, in CIB Report:
Overview of deconstruction in selected countries, publication
252, Rotterdam
Sloot, Kosson 2003
A unified approach for the judgement of environmental
properties of construction materials (cement-based, asphaltic, unbound aggregates, soil) in different stages of their life
cycle, in: WASCON, 2003: Waste Materials in Construction,
Conference papers
Springer 2003
http://www.asv.de unter Nachhaltigkeit, Druckpapier, Recycling vom 04.03.2003
198
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Institute for Environmental Strategies
StaBu 2002
Statistisches Bundesamt, Fachserie 4, Reihe 4.1.1 Beschäftigung, Umsatz und Energieversorgung der Betriebe des Verarbeitenden Gewerbes sowie des Bergbaus und der Gewinnung von Steinen und Erden 1995 – 2001
StaBu 2002
Statistisches Bundesamt, Fachserie 4, Reihe 4.1.1 Beschäftigung, Umsatz und Energieversorgung der Betriebe des Verarbeitenden Gewerbes sowie des Bergbaus und der Gewinnung von Steinen und Erden 1995 – 2001
Steelworks Residues and the Waelz Kiln Treatment of Electric Arc Furnace Dust, Iron and Steel Engineer (1996), No. 4,
87-90
Strohmeier, G., 1996
SVZ 2002
Sekundärrohstoff-Verwertungszentrum Schwarze Pumpe:
Garantieparameter für SVZ-Methanol, E-mail, Mr. Markowski,
22.08.02
SVZ 2003a
http://www.svz-gmbh.de/GB/Seiten/rahmuti.html, November 2003
SVZ 2003b
Sekundärrohstoff-Verwertungszentrum Schwarze Pumpe
GmbH, letter, Mr. Hans-Joachim Sander, dated 01.10.03
SVZ n.y.
Sekundärrohstoff-Verwertungszentrum Schwarze Pumpe
GmbH (n.y.): Wesentliche Ergebnisse des Demonstrationsversuches zur stofflichen Verwertung von ca. 900 t Shredderleichtfraktion in der SVZ GmbH
SVZ pers com. 2003
Sekundärrohstoff-Verwertungszentrum Schwarze Pumpe
GmbH, personal communication, Mr. Buttker, 27.08.03,
Spreetal/Germany
Symonds Group Ltd. 1999
construction and demolition waste management practices,
and their economic impacts, Final Report to DGXI, European
Commission
Technical Dokument Part 4
Pulp, Paper and Board Industry
Theobald, W. 1995
Ermittlung und Verminderung der Emissionen von halogenierten Dioxinen und Furanen aus thermischen Prozessen – Untersuchung der Emissionen polychlorierter Dibenzodioxine
und –furane und Schwermetallen aus Anlagen der Stahlerzeugung, Berlin, 1995
Trauth 2000
Forum Ökologie & Papier, Broschüre, Roth 1998, aktualisierte Version 2000
UBA 2000
"Ökobilanzen für grafische Papiere", Reihe TEXTE des Umweltbundesamtes, Nr. 22/2000
UBA 2003a
„Daten zur Umwelt 2000“, Umweltbundesamt, Berlin unter
http://www.umweltbundesamt.org/dzu/default.html
vom
06.05. 2003 unter 6.6 „Papierverbrauch“
UBA Ö 2003
Böhmer, S., et.al.: Stand der Technik bei kalorischen Kraftwerken und Referenzanlagen in Österreich, Wien, 2003
199
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
UBA-AU 1998
UBA-BSW 1996a
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Behandlung von Reststoffen und Abfällen in der Eisen- und
Stahlindustrie (Treatment of Residues and Waste of Iron
and Steel Industry), S. Gara/S. Schrimpf, Umweltbundesamt
(Federal Environment Agency), Vienna, 1998.
Umweltbundesamt: Untersuchungen des Sammelschrottes
auf PCB-Quellen und Entwicklung geeigneter Vorbehandlungsmaßnahmen, Forschungsbericht 103 10 201, Texte
51/96, Berlin, 1996
UBA-ITAS 2003
Untersuchung des Einflusses der Mitverbrennung von Abfällen in Zementwerken auf die Schwermetallbelastung des
Produktes im Hinblick auf die Zulässigkeit der Abfallverwertung, M. Achternbosch et.al., ITAS, Umweltbundesamt, Berlin, 2003.
UEANET, 2003
www.ueanet.com/furniturewaste/english/chapter3c.htm
UK-EA 2003
Emission Scenario Document: Chemicals Used
in the Coatings Industry; Risk&Policy Analysts Ltd for UK Environmental Agency, Norfolk, 2003.
UPM-Kymmene Oy
USGS 2003:
Ifra 2003
„Verbessertes Verfahren für den International
Newspaper Color Quality Club 2002-2004“, Darmstadt, unter
http://www.ifra.com/ WebSite/ifra.nsf/HTML/Index.html
vom 05.03.2003
U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey:
MINERAL COMMODITY SUMMARIES 2003; UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON DC : 2003
Van der Hoeven, de Iongh 2003
Experiences in working with the Dutch Building Materials
Decree, in: WASCON, 2003: Waste Materials in Construction,
Conference papers
VDP 2001
„Presse-Druckerzeugnisse und Ökologie“, Selbstverständnis
und Verpflichtung des VDP und der in Cepiprint zusammengeschlossenen europäischen Druckfarbenhersteller, des Verbandes der deutschen Zeitschriftenverleger VDZ, des Bundesverbandes deutscher Zeitungsverleger BDVZ, des Bundesverbandes Druck und Medien (bvdm) und des Verbandes
der Druckfarbenindustrie (VdD) zur ökologischen Herstellung
und Kreislaufführung von Pressedruckerzeugnissen, Bonn,
Juli 2001
VDP 2002
„Papierwirtschaft 2001“, Veröffentlichung des Verbandes
deutscher Papierfabriken, Bonn 2002
VDP 2003
Papier 2003, ein Leistungsbericht
VDZ 1996
Hart im Nehmen, stark in der Leistung, fair zur Umwelt,
Verein Deutscher Zementwerke e.V. (VDZ) - Forschungsinstitut der Zementindustrie, Düsseldorf, 1996.
VOC Directive 1999
Council Directive 1999/13/EC of 11 March 1999 on the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the
use of organic solvents in certain activities and installations
200
Definition of waste recovery and disposal operations
Final Report – Part B
Weiss 1996
Institute for Environmental Strategies
Aufbereitung und Verarbeitung von Elektroofenstaub nach
dem BSW-Verfahren (preparation and treatment of EAF filter
dust with BSW method), H.-P. Discher/D. Weiss, presentation during technical excursion of DFIU “material flow management for scrap recycling“, Badische Stahlwerke (BSW),
Kehl, 1996.
201