Sheffield: Andrew Goddard, Viridor Waste Management - Castings ...

TREATMENT verses LANDFILL
The implications of landfill
directive
a treatment plant perspective
BY A.GODDARD
1

Summary
1.0 Landfill Directive
1.1 Landfill a Definition
1.2 Article (1) Overall Objective
1.3 Key Dates 1.3A - Waste Explicitly Banded
1.3B - Biodegradable Municipal Waste
2.0 Current Position
2.1 Volumes
2.2 Special Waste Analysis 86-99
2.3 Hazardous Waste to Landfill 1999
2.4 Treatment Types
2.5 Installed Capacity
2.6 What Will Happen
2.7 Technology Failures
2.8 Hazardous Waste Forum - terms of reference
2.9 Hazardous Waste Forum - Initial Report
3.0 Key Problems to Overcome
3.1 Immediate Action Required
3.1.1 Regulation - what will happen
3.1.2 Hazardous waste characterisation
3.1.3 Threats
3.2 What should producers do
2

Summary
3.3 What should waste management companies do
3.3.1Capacity Changes
3.3.2 Planning Issues
3.3.3 Waste types, Solids, Sludges,Specific problem wastes
3.4 Challenges Waste Acceptance Criteria
4.0 Future Issues
5.0 Conclusion
6.0 References
4.1 Proposed New Legislation
4.2 Lessons from France
3

1.1 LANDFILL A DEFINITION
ref 1
• A waste disposal site for the deposit of waste onto or into land,
including:
- Internal sites
- A permanent (more than 1 year) site for temporary
storage of waste
• But excluding:
- Preparation facilities where:-
Storage prior to treatment for
less than 3 years, or
Storage prior to disposal for
less than 1 year
4

1.2 Article 1 Overall Objective
ref 2
• Stringent operational and technical
requirements on waste and landfills.
• To provide for measures, procedures
and guidance to prevent or reduce
negative effects on the environment and
human health.
5

1.3 Landfill Directive Key
Dates
1. A number of wastes cannot be landfilled from July 2002
(Ref. 1)
2. Pre-treatment requirement from July 2004 (Ref. 6).
3. Landfill classifications( All sites should have conditioning
plans)
Inert
Non-hazardous
Stable hazardous
Hazardous
4. Leachability criteria to be applied July 2005.
Tables
What tests (Ref. 3)
5. Other issues
Biogradables in municipal waste economics (Ref. 2)
6

1.3A Wastes Explicitly Banned
• Liquid waste
• Explosive, corrosive, oxidising, highly
flammable or flammable
• Infectious waste or unknowns
• any other waste not fulfilling the
acceptance criteria (Annex II (organic
limits, leaching criteria ref 7) - dates to
be confirmed
• Whole types
7

1.3B Biodegradable Municipal
Waste ref 1
% of 1995 Date with
value Date derogation
75% 2006 2010
50% 2009 2013
35% 2016 2020
8

2.0 Current Position -
2.1 Volumes ref 4
• 5.2mtpa hazardous waste consigned in 2000 and
rising 8% per annum
• 2.1mtpa of hazardous waste currently being landfilled
in UK
• 1.84mtpa of solid hazardous waste (including
sludges) being landfilled - half of it contaminated soil
• 1.56mtpa is ‘treated’
• 1.0mtpa is recovered/reused
• 156,000 tpa is incinerated
9

2.2 Special Waste arising in
England and Wales, 1986/87 to
1998/99 ref 5
10

2.3 1999 Hazardous Waste to
Landfill
11

2.4 Treatment Capacity - Types
• Physico-chemical.
• Biological treatment.
• Raw material recovery.
• High temperature incineration.
• Recovery of chemicals e.g. solvents
• Cement fuel.
• Recycling paper, wood, metals, plastics.
12

2.5 Installed Capacity -Ref. 4, 5
• Physico-chemical treatment plants have spare capacity for
over 600,000 tonnes per annum of suitable liquid wastes
• High Temperature Incinerators - very little spare capacity now,
will fill with highest value waste (solids?) post Landfill Directive.
No plans for future capacity
• Cement kiln ‘fuel’ blending - sufficient existing capacity for
clean higher CV liquids and some solids. Though high CV solid
capacity is likely to be filled with shredded tyres.
13

2.6 What Will Happen
• Shortfall in capacity - prices will rise
• More waste will be hazardous and require
treatment - facilities are needed
• Some wastes will require specialist treatment
currently with no technology to solve problem
• Waste for landfill will need to be treated to
enable landfill at non-hazardous sites - need
stabilisation/solidification/incineration
14

2.7 Technology Failures
• Wet air oxidation
• Tyre recycling
• Straw burning
• Bioalcohol
15

2.8 Hazardous Waste Forum
- Initial Report Findings
• Serious shortfall in landfill capacity
• Landfill HW prices are falling short term
• Some are circumventing the landfill bans
• ca 2mte additional treatment capacity needed
• IPPC waste minimisation impact unknown, but should
reduce amounts produced
• Capacity data needs refining
• Priority wastes - oils, hazardous agricultural,
contaminated soil, asbestos, air pollution control
residues
16

2.8 Hazardous Waste Forum
-Terms of Reference
• To advise on the way ahead to achieve HW
reduction and sound management of such
wastes, including advice on key decisions
• To identify opportunities to reduce production
• To consider the impacts of legislation
• To provide a better basis for forward planning
• To ‘ensure’ that the UK has an adequate
network of facilities to handle hazardous
waste
17

3.0 Key Problems to Overcome
3.1 Immediate Action Required
3.1.1 Regulation What Will Happen
• Dates will be changed? - hopefully all to 2005 or 2006, consultation on
changes already carried out
• New categories introduced
– for dedicated landfills relaxation of leachability or anions or
relaxation due to onsite treatment and risk assessment
– possible encapsulated hazardous?
– more salt mine storage?
• More waste will become non-hazardous?
• Get the crystal ball out
• This is a marked contrast to the implementation in France over a 20
year period (Ref. )
18

3.1.2 Hazardous Waste
Characterisation (Ref. 3,6,10)
• Classification
• Risk phrases
• Hazard codes
• Duty of Care
• Landfill
WASTE SPECIFICATION
Specific Plant:
Procedure Manual:
Waste Type:
Appearance:
Process Ongoing:
3468
Physiochemical Treatment (D9) from PPC permitted site BK
Filter Press
OPS/OM05
Filter Press
Brown to Green depending
upon degree of oxidation
Physical Nature:
Solid
EWC: 19 02 06
Quantity:
Hazards
Preservation:
Monitoring:
10,000 – 20,000 tonnes per annum
2002 – reported 12,000
2003 - reported 16,000
In 30m 3 roll on/offs or 8 wheel tipper
nonhazardous
Sealed Containers on Collection (will oxidise in air)
Monthly Spot Samples by COTC holder
Samples from the central region of the plate (no
edges – core)
The plate fills from the bottom up.
Any plate from the press.
Waste Characterisation
sawdust – typical
Elemental composition
-Historical Variations
Sludgy(inadequately de-watered) is dried with
characteristics are
-Most recent analysis
-Disposal sites Approval Parkwood, Erin landfill
19

3.1.3 Threats
• Large gap between installed capacity and required capacity to
treat solid hazardous wastes, biggest area of shortfall.
• UK is often late implementing EU legislation
• Lack of clarity in what is expected
• Poor enforcement, especially ‘duty of care’ regulation at
producer sites
• Investors like certainties - producers like the cheapest option
(CAPNIP)
• Planning constraints - long lead times for any new capacity
needing planning permission
May be possible at existing sites, but more difficult due to IPPC
20

3.2 What Should Producers Do
• What should waste producers with hazardous
co-disposal waste streams now do?
- Establish forward strategy dialogue with waste
management company - act early to ‘book’ capacity!
- Identify a UK merchant treatment solution or an endof-pipe
solution post LFD
- No treatment solution visible/acceptable?
Consider possibilities for storage/export of waste, if
appropriate (c.f. fridges), until UK capacity available
• Move to China??
21

3.2 What Should Producers Do
• Producers signing long term contracts
for management of long-life waste
streams is one way of reducing the
investment risk for hazardous waste
management companies
- it will help immensely in bringing in
the required new capacity in the UK
22

3.3 What Should Waste
Management Companies Do?
• Talk to producers direct and not third party
carriers/brokers
• Large gap between existing installed capacity and
required capacity to treat solid hazardous wastes
• Problems in making investment decision
• Waste opportunities
Solids
Sludges
23

3.3.1 Capacity Changes
• Expansion / modifications to existing kit e.g.
- Addition of biological treatment plant to existing physicochemical
treatment capacity
- Sludge or fridge handling added at incinerators
- Powder handling facilities
• Lab/pilot trials of the new technologies
- New oxidation methods to scale-up
• Applications delayed awaiting pre-treatment
requirements and implementation dates
• Unfair competition
24

3.3.2 Planning Issues
• If you ‘switch off’ landfill you need to
‘switch on’ something else…
…and that could take some
considerable time and money!
25

3.3.2 Planning Issues
• Plan led system
• Availability and relevance of the Waste
Local Plans
• Regional development
• Local opposition
• Political will
26

3.3.2 Planning Process
• Typical time scales for a number of
waste treatment facilities (new build)
27

3.3.3 Waste Types :Solids
• Contaminated soils make up roughly half of
these. In-situ treatment and some thermal
treatment is available in the UK Needs to
increase.
• Organic chemical solid wastes will need to be
incinerated or entrained into cement kiln ‘fuel’
slurries. Pressure to change acceptance
criteria at kilns to allow high calorific value
solids.
• Inorganic chemical solid wastes will need to
be stabilised prior to landfill
28

3.3.3 Waste Types:Sludges
• All sludges a problem post-landfill directive
• Oily sludges - specialised thermal treatment
is probably the best solution for the refineries
• Solidification/stabilisation for inorganic
sludges - non bio cell, or pre-treatment
suitable for salt mine storage
• Incineration or cement kiln ‘fuel’ blending for
organic chemical sludges
29

3.3.3 Waste Types :Specific
Problem Wastes
• Aqueous liquids with highly toxic organics or Class I + II ground
water contaminants (chlorinated organics or pesticides)
Insufficient incineration capacity for this type of work, other
technology has failed or in development
• Hazardous solids with high levels of anion leach (includes fly
ash residues from incinerators) Even with stabilisation will need
relaxation of anion leach.
• Hazardous solids/sludges e.g. oily sludges with high organic
leach
• Oxidisers in solid form due to high risk of handling and control
• Monolithic wastes with high levels of surface contamination, a
failure to meet metal leachability + anion leach
• Corrosive solids, particularly powders which are dusty
30

3.4 Challenges
Waste Acceptance Criteria
• Anion leach sulphate,chloride,fluoride
• Organic leach total too slow a limit on
stabilised hazardous.
• Ecotoxicity needs to be applied to
prevent unsuitable wastes going into
non-hazardous landfill.
• Handling of solids - particularly dusty
corrosive
31

4.0 Future Issues
4.1 Proposed New Legislation
• A number of other pieces of legislation need
implementation or are in progress:-
• Hazardous Waste Regulations
• PPC Regulations
• WEEE Directive
• Batteries Directive
• Waste Incineration Directive
• Household Hazardous Waste Directive
• ELV Directive
• Revision to Licensing Regulations
32

4.2 Lessons from France
• Clear direction - economic instruments
set by government i.e. tax
• Long time scales 10-20 years
• Easier planning/permitting procedures
• Government view of high tech solutions
needs to be defined allowing project
planning. Help in costs of assessing
environmental risk of innovation.
33

5.0 Conclusions
• The management of hazardous waste in the UK is set to change
significantly. IN A MESS
• The numerous legislative drivers suggest that volumes may
reduce but the need for treatment will increase
• The planning system must be ‘joined up’ with strategy targets
• The industry needs clarity of legislation and long-term contracts
to reduce investment risks
• Producers need to take ‘duty of care’ seriously and allow
realistic growth of capacity
• Enforcement of ‘duty of care’ and IPPC by regulator
• Use government to set realistic targets and put all systems in
place to allow implementation, learn from EU partners e.g.
lessons from France
34

REFERENCES
1. Landfill(England and Wales)Regulations 2002, available http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2002/20021559.htm
and http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/landfill-regs
http://www.europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=31999L0031
&model=guichett
2. Landfill guidance
http://www.environmentagency.gov.uk/netregs/275207/663559/?lang=_e&theme=&region=&subject=&searchfor=landfill+guidance
www.iema.net/download.php/Kjohnson.pps
3. Leachability requirements
http://www.eareports.com/ea/rdreport.nsf/0/96dd496ff6451f8180256a6c00395173?OpenDocument
http://www.leaching.net
4. Presentation by Gill Weeks of Cleanaway ltd for BRASS on ‘hazardous waste Legislation- An industry perspective’
http://www.brass.cf.ac.uk/Seminar%203%20Gill%20Weekes.ppt
http://www.teesvalley-jsu.gov.uk/dicidauk/conferences/Halton%202002/Andrew%20Smedley.pdf
5. Presentation by A.Smedley of Cleanaway ltd on ‘The landfill directive’
6.Landfill pre-treatment requiremehttp://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/commondata/105385/p1484tr.pdf
7.Ground water contamination http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1998/19982746.htm
8.Alternative treatments
http://www.strategy.gov.uk/files/pdf/technologies-landfill.pdf
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/hazforum/
35

REFERENCES
9. Sita report of France’s performance in meeting landfill directive
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/hazforum/031021/france.pdf
10. Treatment process BAT http://www.environmentagency.gov.uk/yourenv/consultations/582340/?lang=_e&theme=&region=&subject=&searchfor=ippc+tre
atment
11. Landfill performance http://www.endsreport.com/issue/tables/336010.gif
36