Study to facilitate the implementation of certain waste related provisions of the Regulation on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)

1
Study to facilitate the implementation of certain
waste related provisions of the Regulation on
Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)
Meeting of the Committee for the Adaptation to
scientific and technical Progress of
EC-Legislation on Waste June 16, 2005 Brussels
2
Objectives of the project
POPs Regulation 2004/850/EC
information and decision basis to facilitate the
implementation

1. occurrence of POPs in waste compilation and
   evaluation of existing data
2. proposal for concentration limits methodology
   and recommendations
3. environmental preferability methodology and case
   studies
4. proposal for reference measurement methods

3
Information sources
extensive questionnaire
thanks for more than 100 answers

• conferences
• personal meetings
• visits of plants
• telephone and e-mail discussion
• already available studies and data, statistics,
  literature, BREF documents, internet
• stakeholder workshop
• internet discussion on draft final report

4
Differentiated approach for waste and pollutant
flows

• ? Two types of important information
• Quantities of pollutants formed and released
• Volumes and structure of contaminatedwastes to
  be managed

? Separate mass flows are established for
PCDD/Fs PCB POP pesticides other POPs
HCB, HCH, HxBB
5
Topic 2
European mass flow for POPs with a specific focus
on waste
PCDD/PCDF PCB POP pesticides other POPs
6
Mass flow results for dioxins The overall flow
of PCCD/Fs
Based on average concentrations the overall flow
of PCDD/F to waste and products totals 21 kg/year.
7
Mass flow results for dioxins An overview on
sources
Anthropogenic discharge
From activities
17.5 kg/y
Recycling 3.4 kg/y
Sources 20,900 g/year
MSWI 1,999 g/y
Sewage sludge 297 g/y
Fe sintering 1,400 g/y
HWI 78 g/y
Compost 160 g/y
EAF 1,401 g/y
Hospital WI 143 g/y
Road traffic 56 g/y
Fe smelting 143 g/y
PP coal 1,651 g/y
Domestic burn 3,656g/y
Secondary Cu 226 g/y
PP biomass 606 g/y
MSW 8,404 g/y
Secondary Al 500 g/y
EDC production 13 g/y
336 g/y
Secondary Zn 181 g/y
8
Mass flow results for dioxins An overview on
endpoints
Anthropogenic discharge
From activities
17.5 kg/year
Emissions 4.2 kg/year
Recycling / recovery 3,400 g/year
Waste 16,350 g/year
Waste for disposal 13.3 kg/y
Temporary storage 92 g/year
Landfill for non haz. waste 7,125 g/year
Landfill for hazard. waste 2,197 g/year
Hazard. waste incineration 200 g/year
Landfill for inert waste 273 g/year
Landfill for hazard. or non haz. waste 1,780
g/year
Non haz. waste incineration 1,741 g/year
9
Dioxin waste flow Means and ranges of
contamination in different waste types
10
Dioxin waste flows A detailed view on selected
waste streamsExample EAF
Metals, scrap m69.5 Mt c negligible
Filter dust m 1.1 Mt c 1.1 ng TEQ/g(0.1 - 10)
Refractory bricks m x c 0 ng TEQ/g
Slag m10 Mt c0.001 ng TEQ/g(0.0002-0.003)
Landfill m x c0 ng TEQ/g
Sold, used and recycled m 5.6 Mt c 0.11 ng TEQ/g
Temporary storage m 0.5 Mt c 0.11 ng TEQ/g
Hazardous or non hazardous landfill m 5 Mt c
0.11 ng TEQ/g
in g PCDD/F TEQ/y
11
Correlation of Low POP content Limit and Waste
Quantities Dioxins
quantity POP wastekt
2,800
450
300
limit value
100
1 ppb
5 ppb
10 ppb
15 ppb
12
Mass Flow results for PCBs The overall flow of
PCBs
Based on average concentrations waste flows
contain a total PCB load of 5,600 tons/year.
13
Mass Flow Details on PCB An overview on sources
and endpoints
WEEE 5,210 t/year
sewage sludge 4.8 t/year
waste oil 14.9 t/year
Demolition lt1000 t/year
Shredder 18 t/year
compost 4.5 t/year
Sources 6,252 t/year
Product 4.5 t/year
Emission 626 t/year
Waste 5,626 t/year
4.5 t/year
Incineration hazardous 4,991 t/year
Incineration 4.35 t/year
landfilling hazardous/ underground storage 303.5
t/year
landfillingnon-hazardous 11.75 t/year
landfillinginert 300 t/year
Energy recovery 3.15 t/year
Substance recovery 10 t/year
14
Correlation of Low POP content Limit Waste
Quantities PCB
quantity POP waste kt

• construction and demolition waste is not included
  in the figure becausePCB contamination ? 1 ppm
  is already regulated
• excavated soil is not considered due to missing
  data

6,700
2,900
800
470
100
1 ppm
5 ppm
10 ppm
20 ppm
50 ppm
15
Mass Flow results for POP pesticides The overall
flow of POP pesticides
Based on average concentrations waste flows
contain a total POP load of 537 tons/year.
16
Mass Flow results for other POPs The overall
flow of other POPs
Based on average concentrations waste flows
contain a total POP load of 3,500 tons/year.
17
Next material flow
18
Topic 3
Methods for establishment of limit values and
corresponding suggestions
Annex IV
19
Assessment Methodologies and their Outcome
Overview
maximum limit (Annex V)
low POP content limit (Annex IV)
Concentrationof POP in waste
xxxxxxx
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
////////////////////////////////////////////////
POP waste POP content to be irreversibly
destroyed
POP wastedisposal operation may depend on
environmental preferability (annex V)
NoPOPwaste99/31/EC
Method 1 for assessment ofmaximum limit
Method 1 for assessment of low POP content limit
Proposals for low POP content limits for
different POPs (Annex IV)
Proposals for maximum limits for different POPs
(Annex V)
exemplary application for important cases
20
Method 1 related to Annex IV Basic Principle
Concentrationof POP in waste
Upper limitation criteria for determining limit
values (Limit value has to be below)
Lower limitation criteria for determining limit
values (Limit value may not be below )
Range for suggestion of limit value
21
Method 1 Lower Limitation Criteria for Low POP
content Limit
A Analytical potential B Environmental
background contamination C Disposal
capacities D Economic feasibility
22
Method 1 Upper Limitation Criteria
Z Existing limit values already agreed by
European Union Y unacceptable risks to human
health and the environment X Precautionary
principle
23
Target Function for Range Reduction
"Reduce results for different waste matrices to
the most unfavourable waste matrix"
target function
result after application of target function
0.01 ppb
0.05 ppb
0.1 ppb
Analytical sensitivity in different waste matrices
24
Target function II (Precautionary principle)
"Each party shall take measures to reduce the
total releaseswith the goal of their continuing
minimization and, where feasible, ultimate
elimination " (Stockholm Convention Article 5-7)
target function
range
result after application of target function
25
Results for Criterion A Analytical potential
Dioxins 0.1 ppb for PCDD/PCDF-TEQ PCBs 1 ppm
individual congener 30 ppm total PCB (based on S
6 cong. x 5) POP pesticides 1 ppm other POPs 1
ppm
26
Criterion A Analytical Potential for Dioxin
Measurements
Cost (relative)
Standard
LimitationCrit. A
Cost for dioxin measurement in most unfavourable
matrix
2.0
1.5
1.0
Dioxin concentrationdetected (TEQ)
0.01 ppb
0.1 ppb
1.0 ppb
10 ppb
Detection method HRGC/HRMS
27
Results for Criterion B Environmental POP levels
(soil)
background concentration uncertainty factor criterion B
dioxin 0.001 ppb 10 0.01 ppb
PCBs 1 ppm 10 10 ppm
POP pesticides 0.1 ppm 100 10 ppm
other POPs 0.1 ppm 100 10 ppm
28
Modelled mean contamination levels for soil in
European countries ( EMEP data base )
Country PCCD/Fpg TEQ/g PCB ng/g HCB ng/g
  10-3 ppb 10-3 ppm 10-3 ppm
AT 0.93 23.31 0.37
BE 2.84 40.15 0.23
CY 0.03 0.25 0.02
CZ 1.44 20.13 0.24
DE 1.56 40.02 0.27
DK 0.63 13.09 0.20
EE 0.29 8.84 0.33
ES 0.26 7.04 0.15
FI 0.23 12.24 0.44
FR 0.94 17.75 0.22
GR 0.24 2.38 0.06
HU 0.56 12.80 0.36
IE 0.21 8.72 0.27
Country PCCD/Fpg TEQ/g PCB ng/g HCB ng/g
  10-3 ppb 10-3 ppm 10-3 ppm
IT 0.67 19.26 0.20
LT 0.36 9.61 0.27
LU 2.88 25.99 0.26
LV 0.29 8.84 0.31
MT 0.03 0.13 0.02
NL 1.81 46.96 0.25
PL 0.75 13.72 0.32
PT 0.21 6.63 0.19
SE 0.31 11.52 0.29
SI 0.75 17.68 0.33
SK 0.81 13.15 0.33
UK 0.70 33.22 0.38
29
Results for Criterion C Disposal Capacities
limit value additional amounts of waste capacities available serious capacity problems expected
Dioxins ? 5 ppb ? 0.4 Mio. t ok by 1 ppb
PCB ? 5 ppm ? 1.5 Mio. t ok by 1 ppm
HCB, HCH, HxBB 10 ppm lt 1 Mio. t ok no problems expected
POP pesticides 10 ppm lt 1 Mio. t ok no problems expected
based on available data
30
Criterion C Disposal CapacitiesLow POP content
limits should be realistic against the background
of disposal capacities
Material flows
Scenario for low limit value
Needed quantities
Continue with higher limit value
Comparison to available capacities (Transport,
disposal, administration)
NO
Assessment of possibility and time frame to build
up sufficient capacities
Realistic?
YES
Use as lower limitation criterion
31
Correlation of Low POP content Limit and Waste
Quantities Dioxins
quantity POP wastekt
2,800
450
300
limit value
100
1 ppb
5 ppb
10 ppb
15 ppb
32
Results for Criterion D Economic Feasibility
Feasible limit values Dioxins (TEQ) 10 ppb
PCB 30 ppm POP pesticides 1
ppm other POPs 1 ppm
total PCB in terms of S 6 Cong. x 5
33
Criterion D Economic feasibilityLow POP
content Limits have to be in accordance with
economic feasibility
Material flows
Scenario for low limit value
Consequences for POP waste quantities
Continue with higher limit value
Monetary impacts compared to status quo
NO
Feasibility against economic parameters
Feasible?
YES
Use as lower limitation criterion
34
Correlation of Low POP content Limit and Waste
Quantities Dioxins
35
Examples for important economic impacts due
todioxin Low POP contents Limits (5, 10, 15 ppb)

• Recovery of aluminium filter dust
• limit value of 5 ppb would reduce recovery
  potential significantly(around 10,000 t
  estimated) ? minimum additional costs 2 mio.
  expected
• limit value of 10 ppb and 15 ppb would have only
  smaller impacts(around 2,000 t estimated)
• Recovery of fly ash in asphalt
• limit value of 5 ppb would reduce recovery
  potential significantly(around 100,000 t
  estimated)
• limit value of 10 ppb and 15 ppb would have only
  smaller impacts (around 10,000 t and 2,000 t
  estimated)

conclusion economic feasibility at a Low POP
content Limit of 10 ppb
36
Correlation of Low POP content Limit and
Quantities of POP Waste PCB
37
Examples for important economic impacts due to
PCB Low POP contents Limits of 10, 30, 50 ppm

• Shredder residues
• recycling of cables will be more difficult as
  part of shredder material will become POP waste
• For a limit value of 10 ppm up to 200,000 t are
  concerned, for limit values of 30 ppm or 50 ppm
  these amounts are significant lower ( 25,000 t).
• Construction and demolition waste
• significant amounts of waste will become POP
  waste, however already existing regulation sets
  up 1 ppm limit value for inert waste disposal

conclusion economic feasibility at a Low POP
content Limit of 30 ppm
38
Low POP content Limit Overall result of the
lower limitation criteria
dioxins
c
0.01 ppb
0.1 ppb
5 ppb
10 ppb
Criterion
B
A
C
D
PCBs
c
5 ppm
10 ppm
30 ppm
Criterion
C
B
A and C
POP pesticides
c
1 ppm
10 ppm
Criterion
A
B
no limitations by C and D
other POPs
c
1 ppm
10 ppm
Criterion
A
B
no limitations by C and D
39
Results for Criterion Z Existing Limit
Values"Low POP content limits should not exceed
already existing international/ community agreed
limits"
Dioxins 15 ppb PCB 50 ppm POP
pesticides 50 ppm other POPs 50 ppm
SourceBasel Convention General technical
Guideline on ESM of POP wastes (final) Technical
Guidelines on ESM of PCB/PCTs (final)
adopted by COP 7 under the Basel Convention,
Geneva 2004
40
Results for criterion Y unacceptable risk to
human health"Low POP content limit have to
exclude unacceptable risks"
Levels, for which unacceptable risks can be
excluded
Dioxins 1 or 15 ppb (depending on restrictions
for disposal routes) PCB 50 ppm POP
pesticides 50 ppm other POPs 50 ppm
That means, the already agreed limit values
(Basel Convention) enable the exclusion of
unacceptable risks to health and the environment
for PCBs, POP pesticides and other POPs. This
does not mean, that all risks can be excluded at
these levels.
41
Risk assessment
All waste flows of the analysed POP waste flows
have been checked on most critical but realistic
ways of disposal.
POP relevant material flows
disposal paths
evaluation on critical exposure risk
Ranking
Result The most critical disposal/recovery path
is use of contaminated material placed directly
onto or mixed with soil e.g. as fertilizer,
sidewalk pavement.
42
Contaminated material placed directly onto or
mixed with soil
Atmospheric deposition
Exposure viafood chain
absorption/ingestion from upper soil layers
directexposure
slow diffusion /low transfer rates for
hydrophobic, lipophilic substances between soil
layers
43
Assessment of critical paths
tolerable PCCD/F level in eggs 3 pg TEQ/g
fat uncertainty factor 10 (following risk
assessment)
level where unacceptable risks can not be
excluded 30 pg/g fat
assumption 0.9 ppb contaminated material ?
elevation by 7.5 pg/g fat in eggs 4 ppb
contaminated material ? elevation gt 30 pg/g fat
in eggs
unacceptable risks can not be excluded by 4 ppb
Low POP content limit
2001/2375/EC
44
Consequences of assessment
Result Low POP content limit of 1- 3 ppb for
dioxin contamination of waste would be necessary
to exclude unacceptable risks
Result fits to several limit values for soil and
related material (1 ppb)
CZ Action limit recreational areas 1 ppb
DE Action limit residential areas 1 ppb
HU Action limit less sensitive soil 1 ppb
SE Guidance value less sensitive 0.25 ppb
EU Sewage sludge for agricultural application 0.1 ppb (draft)
45
Risk and exposure assessment for Total PCB
EPA risk and exposure assessment of PCBs
"Use, processing and distribution in commerce of
products with less than 50 ppm PCB concentration
will not generally present an unreasonable risk
of harm or injury to health or the
environment"53 Federal Register No 123, 24206,
June 27, 1988
46
Transmission of Risk Assessment for PCB, POP
pesticides and other POPs
Following toxicological attributes of POP
pesticides and other POPs, the POPs carrying
medium and the potential to enter the food chain
there are similarities between PCBs, POP
pesticides and other POPs. Therefore the risk
assessment results can be assigned. Consequently
unacceptable risks can be excluded for the
following Low POP content Limit values
PCB 50 ppm POP pesticides 50 ppm other POPs 50
ppm
47
Overall result for method 1 Low POP content
limit PCB

Criterion X

Concentration

of PCB

in waste

5
10
30
50




ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm




Criterion

Criterion

Criteria

Criterion

C

B

A,D

Z, Y

option 1
option 2

Proposal for Low POP content limit
48
Overall result for method 1 Low POP content
limit POP pesticides

Criterion X


Concentration

of POP pesticides

in waste
1
10
50



ppm
ppm
ppm






Criterion
Criteria
Criterion



A
B
Z, Y
option 1
option 2

Proposal for Low POP content limit
49
Overall result for method 1 Low POP content
limit other POPs

Criterion X


Concentration

of other POPs

in waste
1
10
50



ppm
ppm
ppm





Criterion

Criterion
Criterion



A
B
Z, Y
option 1
option 2

Proposal for Low POP content limit
50
Overall result for method 1 Low POP content
limitPCDD/PCDF (Standard procedure)
Criterion X
Concentrationof dioxins in waste
15ppb
0.1/0.01ppb
1ppb
5ppb
10ppb
?
CriterionA, B
CriteriaY
CriterionC
CriterionD
CriterionZ
problems to suggest low POP content limit
51
First approach to solve the contradiction
Low POP content limit is set at 15 ppb for dioxin
contamination
Ban to directly place waste material onto or mix
with soil if dioxin concentration of 1 ppb is
exceeded.
By means of Article 7, N 6"The Commission may
... adopt additional measures relating to the
implementation of this Article."
POP relevant waste flows
disposal paths
evaluation on critical exposure risk
Ranking
Next critical exposure pathuse of PCDD/PCDF
contaminated material in asphalt for road
construction
52
PCDD/PCDF contaminated material in asphalt for
road construction
Atmospheric deposition
Exposure viafood chain
absorption/ingestion from upper soil layers
direct exposure
slow diffusion /low transfer rates for
hydrophobic, lipophilic substances between soil
layers
53
Results of selected studies
Use of fly ash as filler in asphalt for road
constructionsource Environmental impact Report
National Waste Management Plans
(LCA-AVI-vliegas, final report 2002,
TAUW) leakage rate max. 1 in 100 years
Low POP content limit of 15 ppb PCDD/PCDF-TEQ
will not lead to any unacceptable risks
54
Contradiction of lower and upper limitation
criteria
Criterion X
Concentrationof dioxins in waste
15ppb
0.1/0.01ppb
5ppb
10ppb
CriteriaA, B
CriterionC
CriterionD
CriterionZ
55
Selected solution of contradiction (first
approach)
Concentrationof dioxins in waste
5ppb
0.1/0.01ppb
10 ppb
15ppb
Ban to directly place onto or mix with soil if
PCDD/PCDF-TEQ of 1 ppb is exceeded (R 10)
CriteriaA, B
CriterionC
CriterionD
CriterionZ, Y
option 1
option 2
Proposal for low POP content limit
56
Contradiction of lower and upper limitation
criteria
Criterion X
Concentrationof dioxins in waste
15ppb
0.1/0.01ppb
1ppb
CriteriaA, B
CriterionY
CriterionZ
57
Selected solution to solve contradiction (second
approach)
Concentrationof dioxins in waste
0.1/0.01ppb
15ppb
1ppb
amendment of annex V
CriteriaA, B
CriterionZ
CriteriaY,C,D

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

suggested low POP content limit
58
Suggested low POP content limits
Option 2
Option 1
15 ppb or 1 ppb 50 ppm 50 ppm 50 ppm
Dioxins 10 ppb or 1 ppb PCBs 30 ppm POP
pesticides 10 ppm other POPs 10 ppm
Ban to directly place onto or mix with soil if
dioxin concentration of 1 ppb is exceeded (R
10) Annex V amended total PCB in terms
of S 6 Cong. x 5
59
Correlation of Low POP content Limit and Coverage
of PCDD/F discharge to waste and products
Coverage of Total PCDD/F by Low POP limit 1 ppb
not covered
77
MSWI - APC residues
6
MSWI - hydroxide sludge
others (lt 1)
1
2
PP biomass - mixed ashes
Sec. Alu - filter dust
Sinter plants - FGT-residues
3
2
4
Sinter plants - filter dust
5
60
Correlation of Low POP content Limit and Coverage
of PCDD/F discharge to waste and products
Coverage of Total PCDD/F by Low POP limit 10 ppb
not covered
97
MSWI - APC residues
1
Sinter plants - filter dust
others (lt 1)
1
Sec. Alu - filter dust
0
1
61
Correlation of Low POP content Limit and Coverage
of PCDD/F discharge to waste and products
Coverage of Total PCDD/F by Low POP limit 15 ppb
not covered
98
MSWI - APC residues
1
others (lt 1)
1
62
Correlation of Low POP content Limit and Coverage
of PCB discharge to waste and products
Coverage of Total PCB by Low POP limit 30 ppm
EEEs - large equipment
82
others (lt 1)
0
not covered
18
63
Correlation of Low POP content limit and Coverage
of PCB discharge to waste and products
Coverage of Total PCB by Low POP limit 50 ppm
EEEs - large equipment
83
not covered
17
64
Topic 3
Methods for establishment of limit values and
corresponding suggestions
Annex V
65
Assessment Methodologies and their Outcome Annex
V
maximum limit (Annex V)
low POP content limit (Annex IV)
Concentrationof POP in waste
xxxxxxx
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
////////////////////////////////////////////////
POP waste POP content to be irreversibly
destroyed
POP wastedisposal operation may depend on
environmental preferability (Annex V)
NoPOPwaste99/31/EC
Method 1 for assessment ofmaximum limit
Method 1 for assessment of low POP content limit
Proposals for maximum limits for different POPs
(Annex V)
Proposals for low POP content limits for
different POPs (Annex IV)
exemplary application for important cases
66
Criteria for Maximum Limits (Annex V) Basic
principle
Restriction to Annex V wastes EWC 17 bulky
residues from construction and demolition EWC
10, 16, 19 solid residues from thermal processes
in power production, waste incineration and
metallurgical industry
Potentially Permitted management options up to
maximum limit D12 Permanent storage
(underground, hard rock, landfill site for
hazardous waste)
Permitted management options above limit value D
9 Physico-chemical treatment D 10 Incineration
on land R 1 Use as a fuel or other means to
generate energy
Leaching potential and Long-time leaching
behaviour crucial assessment factors
67
What leakage rates can be expected in appropriate
landfill sites?
Leachate concentrations to be expected following
state of the art
Results from leaching tests for dioxins 6) without treatment cement and pozzolanic solidification thermoplastic solidification
Leaching under varying test conditions 0.001 1) 0.001-0.0001 2) 0.002 3) 2.5 4)
Estimated 100 year leaching rate 5) 1 0.01 0.001(10-6)
Proposal appropriate annual leachate rate 10-6
Source 1) to 6) LCA AVI fly ash, 2002 (all
values are applicable to a 100 year period)
other sources yield similar results
Additional protective effect of sealing layers as
requested under 1999/31/EC not yet taken into
account
68
Tolerable maximum concentrations based on
leaching rates following current knowledge
Existing target levels for agricultural soil
which exclude unacceptable risks (based on ADI
and precautionary principle) PCDD/PCDF 0.005
ppb PCB 0.002 ppm POP pesticides 0.005
ppm other POPs 0.005 ppm
Worst case estimate based on leaching rate for
solidified waste
PCDD/PCDF 0.005 ppb x 1,000,000 5,000
ppb PCB 0.002 ppm x 1,000,000 2,000 ppm POP
pesticides 0.005 ppm x 1,000,000 5,000
ppm other POPs 0.005 ppm x 1,000,000 5,000
ppm
69
Results of Modified Criterion Y"Landfilling
should not be allowed if contamination of waste
causes unacceptable risks to health and
environment"
appropriate non-hazardous landfill and hazardous
landfill (based on leaching rate)
Dioxins 5,000 ppb PCB 2,000 ppm POP
pesticides 5,000 ppm other POPs 5,000
ppm
appropriate storage in salt mines, safe deep hard
rock formation
Dioxins PCB POP pesticides other POPs
no restrictions
70
Topic 4
Methods to determine environmentally preferable
options (compared with the destruction or
irreversible transformation of the POP content
in waste)
Requirements for the demonstration of
preferability Format for the submission of the
information in accordance with Article 7
paragraph 4 (b) (iii) and paragraph 6
71
Method to determine an environmentally preferable
solution
Principles

• Different types of environmental contamination
  need to be compared ? relative examination
• Alternatives are measured against a benchmark
  (incineration)
• The assessment covers three dimensions
• Emissions of POPs
• Emissions of other pollutants, resources and
  energy consumption
• Relevant risks to human health and the
  environment
• In each dimension, -2/-1/0/1/2 credits can be
  allocated

72
Method to determine an environmentally preferable
solution
Principles (ctd)

• Dimension can be weighted differently by the
  competent authority, depending on local
  contamination settings, within a pre-set range
• Environmental preferability is given if the
  credits obtained by an alternative option are
  above 0.
• The sum of weighting factor used is 3, with a
  minimum value of 0.5, and a maximum factor of 2.
• Credits are awarded following the scheme below
• Environmental performance equivalent to
  benchmark 0
• inferior to benchmark -1
• remarkably inferior to benchmark -2
• stronger than benchmark 1
• remarkably stronger than benchmark 2

73
Method to determine an environmentally preferable
solution
Performance \ Criteria Bench-mark Option X Relation Credits Weight Total Performance
? POP discharge air water waste
? Other emissions(e.g. heavy metals, GHG, ozone precursors, acidifying substances, other)
? Risks, uncertainties
Total 3
74
Exemplary case 1 Waste, intended disposal route,
and benchmark
Waste code and waste designation 19 01 13 Fly ash containing dangerous substances
Origin Municipal solid waste incineration
Contamination 15 ppb PCDD/PCDF-TEQ
Amount 100 t, total PCDD/PCDF-TEQ content 1.5 g
Intended disposal route (Option X) Disposal in hazardous waste landfill Hazardous waste landfill according to BAT standards Solidification with cement addition of binding reagent (250 kg/t) and water (100 l/t)
Benchmark Thermal destruction
Period of disposal February and March 2005
Transport Intended option100 km road transport to hazardous waste landfill Benchmark 200 km to thermal destruction facility
Handling Safe handling and compliance with occupational exposure limits guaranteed
75
Exemplary case 1 POP emissions
? POP discharge benchmark option X
air 1.5 µg 0
leachate 0 lt 1.5 µg / year
waste lt 4000 µg 0
Credits for criterion ? 1 Credits for criterion ? 1 Credits for criterion ? 1
Justification Option X is considered environmentally preferable because emission to air is given higher priority with respect to environmental impact than leachate. Justification Option X is considered environmentally preferable because emission to air is given higher priority with respect to environmental impact than leachate. Justification Option X is considered environmentally preferable because emission to air is given higher priority with respect to environmental impact than leachate.
76
Exemplary case 1 Other emissions
? Other emissions benchmark option X
CO2 emission for destruction/solidification 23 t CO2 15.6 t CO2
CO2 emission for transport 0.4 t CO2 0.2 t CO2
Credits for criterion ? 1 Credits for criterion ? 1 Credits for criterion ? 1
JustificationOption X is considered environmentally preferable due to the following reasons Heavy metals released during incineration are adsorbed to a large extent to flue gas treatment residues. Thus, no important difference exists in potential emissions from the two alternative disposal pathways. Therefore, with respect to emissions other than POPs, greenhouse gas emissions constitute the most important argument. The intended treatment causes less CO2 emissions compared to the benchmark technology. Also lower emission from transport due to lower distance are in favour to the intended option. JustificationOption X is considered environmentally preferable due to the following reasons Heavy metals released during incineration are adsorbed to a large extent to flue gas treatment residues. Thus, no important difference exists in potential emissions from the two alternative disposal pathways. Therefore, with respect to emissions other than POPs, greenhouse gas emissions constitute the most important argument. The intended treatment causes less CO2 emissions compared to the benchmark technology. Also lower emission from transport due to lower distance are in favour to the intended option. JustificationOption X is considered environmentally preferable due to the following reasons Heavy metals released during incineration are adsorbed to a large extent to flue gas treatment residues. Thus, no important difference exists in potential emissions from the two alternative disposal pathways. Therefore, with respect to emissions other than POPs, greenhouse gas emissions constitute the most important argument. The intended treatment causes less CO2 emissions compared to the benchmark technology. Also lower emission from transport due to lower distance are in favour to the intended option.
77
Exemplary case 1 Risks, uncertainties
? Risks, uncertainties benchmark option X
legal compliance o.k. o.k.
long term safety assured uncertain
Credits for criterion ? 1 Credits for criterion ? 1 Credits for criterion ? 1
Justification Even if several estimations indicate that the disposal of solidified waste may be safe for centuries, uncertainty with respect to long-time safety of landfilling is the crucial factor in view of comparable performance. Justification Even if several estimations indicate that the disposal of solidified waste may be safe for centuries, uncertainty with respect to long-time safety of landfilling is the crucial factor in view of comparable performance. Justification Even if several estimations indicate that the disposal of solidified waste may be safe for centuries, uncertainty with respect to long-time safety of landfilling is the crucial factor in view of comparable performance.
78
Exemplary case 1 Result
Performance\Criteria Credits Weight Total Performance
? POP emissions 1 1 1
? Other emissions 1 1 1
? Risks, uncertainties 1 1 1
Total 3 1
The intended waste treatment option is
environmentally preferable
79
Reporting Format - I
Notification of treatment and disposal of POP waste authorized as environmentally preferable to irreversible destruction Notification of treatment and disposal of POP waste authorized as environmentally preferable to irreversible destruction
Commission (Competent body with address) To be forwarded to (Contact Member States)
Notifying authority (Name, address) Contact person Tel. Fax e-mail Date
Waste generator (Name, address) Contact person Tel. Fax e-mail Waste disposer (Name, address) Contact person Tel. Fax e-mail
Site of generation and process Actual site of disposal
80
Reporting Format II
Notification of treatment and disposal of POP waste authorized as environmentally preferable to irreversible destruction Notification of treatment and disposal of POP waste authorized as environmentally preferable to irreversible destruction
General description of waste Waste code Origin Contamination Amount Intended disposal route Intended date or period of disposal
Measurement information Measurement data Measurement methods Technology and precautionary measures applied, incl. pre-treatment and/or solidification or stabilisation measures Tests on leakage rate available Measurement data Measurement methods
Transport to disposal site (distance, means) Considered disposal benchmark Specifications
Additional specification regarding waste handling
81
Draft reporting format - Performance matrix for
justification of alternative waste management
operations
Performance related to benchmark Performance related to benchmark Performance related to benchmark Performance related to benchmark
credits weight total performance evidence and justification
? POP emissions
air
leachate
waste
? Other emissions, energy and resource consumption
CO2 emission for destruction/solidification
CO2 emission for transport
Other emissions (Greenhouse gases, heavy metals, acidifying gases, etc.)
? Risks, uncertainties
legal compliance
long term safety
82
Assessment Methodologies and their Outcome
Overview
maximum limit
low POP content limit
Concentrationof POP in waste
xxxxxxx
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
////////////////////////////////////////////////
POP waste POP content to be irreversibly
destroyed
POP wastedisposal operation may depend on
environmental preferability (annex V)
NoPOPwaste99/31/EC
Method 1 for assessment ofmaximum limit
Method 1 for assessment of low POP content limit
Proposals for maximum limits for different POPs
Proposals for low POP content limits for
different POPs
exemplary application for important cases
83
Specification of the required solidification and
stabilisation and other restrictions
POP waste with concentration above Low POP
content limit and below maximum limit

• Methods for solidification / stabilisation
• Relevant pre-treatment methods
• leachate concentrations to be expected
• Evaluation (environmental drawbacks and risks)
• Requirements and restrictions(Are limit values
  appropriate? If so, which?Is the origin of the
  waste relevant?Which pre-treatments are
  necessary?)

solidification / stabilisation
environ-mentally prefer-able compared to
irreversible de-struction?
no
yes
landfill possible
irreversible destruction
84
What are appropriate leakage rates?
Leachate concentrations to be expected following
state of the art
Results from leaching tests for dioxins 6) without treatment cement and pozzolanic solidification thermoplastic solidification
Leaching under varying test conditions 0.001 1) 0.001-0.0001 2) 0.002 3) 2.5 4)
Estimated 100 year leaching rate 5) 1 0.01 0.001
Proposal appropriate annual leachate rate 10-6
Source 1) to 6) LCA AVI fly ash, 2002 (all
values are applicable to a 100 year period)
85
When is a solidification required?
low leakage rate ? solidification not required
because leakage rate is below minimum requirements
leakage rate not relevant ? irreversible
destruction requiredsolidification makes no
sense
86
Results of Modified Criterion Y"Landfilling
should not be allowed if contamination of waste
causes unacceptable risks to health and
environment"
appropriate non-hazardous landfill and hazardous
landfill
Dioxins 5,000 ppb PCB 2,000 ppm POP
pesticides 5,000 ppm other POPs 5,000
ppm
appropriate storage in salt mines, safe deep hard
rock formation
Dioxins PCB POP pesticides other POPs
no restrictions
87
measurement techniques
88
Measurement of POPs in waste matrices Problem of
Matrix

• WASTE liquids ?? solids
  soil like ?? plastics
  homogeneous ?? complex mixture ltlt
  interferences ?? gtgt interferences ? no
  fixed matrix waste from an analytical point of
  view? no fixed method for matrix waste from
  an analytical point of view? no fixed
  analytical sensitivity as no fixed matrix

89
Analysis of POPs in waste matrices
Steps for analysis of POPs (examples for
available techniques)

1. Sampling/Transport
2. Pretreatment grinding,
   centrifugation, filtration
3. Extraction liquid / liquid shaking /
   ultrasonic soxhlet and ASE
4. Clean-up gel permeation multi-layer silica
   carbon alumina
5. Measurement GC - ECD - MS / HRMS

90
POPs measurement standards for waste
Harmonised European standards not yet available
Recommendation for standard requirementsModula
r system including the different analytical
techniques used and recommendation which
technique can be used for which matrixFinal
decision on the methods used has to be taken by
the analyst depending on individual matrix
Minimum performance criteria have to be
accomplished (QA/QC)
Standards to be developed or under development by
CEN/TC 292 (sampling, analysis, leaching)
91
Total package to support implementation
groups of waste categories testing
proposal methodology for environmental
preferability case studies reporting
format requirements for solidification measurement
techniques