1. 1 BiPRO 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. 2 BiPRO 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. 3 BiPRO 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. 4 BiPRO Differentiated approach for waste and pollutant flows  Two types of important information: Quantities of pollutants formed and released Volumes and structure of contaminated wastes to be managed waste volume limit value  Separate mass flows are established for PCDD/Fs PCB POP pesticides other POPs: HCB, HCH, HxBB

5. 5 BiPRO Topic 2 European mass flow for POPs with a specific focus on waste PCDD/PCDF PCB POP pesticides other POPs

6. 6 BiPRO Mass flow results for dioxins: The overall flow of PCCD/Fs 21 kg/year Based on average concentrations the overall flow of PCDD/F to waste and products totals 21 kg/year.

7. 7 BiPRO Mass flow results for dioxins: An overview on sources Anthropogenic discharge Recycling: 3.4 kg/y From activities: ~ 17.5 kg/y Sources 20,900 g/year Secondary Zn: 181 g/y Secondary Al: 500 g/y Secondary Cu: 226 g/y Fe sintering: 1,400 g/y Fe smelting: 143 g/y EAF: 1,401 g/y HWI: 78 g/y Hospital WI: 143 g/y PP coal: 1,651 g/y EDC production: 13 g/y PP biomass: 606 g/y MSWI: ~ 1,999 g/y Compost: 160 g/y Road traffic: 56 g/y Sewage sludge: 297 g/y 336 g/y Domestic burn: 3,656g/y MSW: 8,404 g/y

8. 8 BiPRO Mass flow results for dioxins: An overview on endpoints Anthropogenic discharge Waste for disposal: 13.3 kg/y From activities: ~ 17.5 kg/year Waste 16,350 g/year Recycling / recovery 3,400 g/year Temporary storage 92 g/year Landfill for inert waste 273 g/year Landfill for non haz. waste 7,125 g/year Landfill for hazard. waste* 2,197 g/year Landfill for hazard. or non haz. waste** 1,780 g/year Hazard. waste incineration ~200 g/year Non haz. waste incineration 1,741 g/year Emissions: 4.2 kg/year

9. 9 BiPRO Dioxin waste flow: Means and ranges of contamination in different waste types

10. 10 BiPRO Dioxin waste flows: A detailed view on selected waste streams Example: EAF Metals, scrap m=69.5 Mt c= negligible Filter dust m= 1.1 Mt c= 1.1 ng TEQ/g (0.1 - 10) Landfill m= x c=0 ng TEQ/g Sold, used and recycled m= 5.6 Mt c= 0.11 ng TEQ/g Refractory bricks m= x c= 0 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 Slag m=10 Mt c=0.001 ng TEQ/g (0.0002-0.003) 0 10 1224 0 616 557 61 0 in g PCDD/F TEQ/y

11. 11 BiPRO Correlation of Low POP content Limit and Waste Quantities: Dioxins 1 ppb5 ppb10 ppb15 ppb quantity POP waste [kt] limit value 100 300 450 2,800

12. 12 BiPRO Mass Flow results for PCBs: The overall flow of PCBs 5,600 tons/year Based on average concentrations waste flows contain a total PCB load of 5,600 tons/year.

13. 13 BiPRO Mass Flow Details on PCB: An overview on sources and endpoints Product 4.5 t/year Sources 6,252 t/year Emission 626 t/year Waste 5,626 t/year WEEE: 5,210 t/year Demolition: <1000 t/yearShredder: 18 t/yearcompost: 4.5 t/year sewage sludge: 4.8 t/yearwaste oil: 14.9 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 landfilling non-hazardous ~ 11.75 t/year landfilling inert 300 t/year Energy recovery 3.15 t/year Substance recovery 10 t/year

14. 14 BiPRO 1 ppm5 ppm10 ppm20 ppm 100 2,900 6,700 800 -construction and demolition waste is not included in the figure because PCB contamination  1 ppm is already regulated -excavated soil is not considered due to missing data 50 ppm Correlation of Low POP content Limit Waste Quantities : PCB quantity POP waste [kt] 470

15. 15 BiPRO Mass Flow results for POP pesticides: The overall flow of POP pesticides 537 tons/year Based on average concentrations waste flows contain a total POP load of 537 tons/year.

16. 16 BiPRO Mass Flow results for other POPs: The overall flow of other POPs 3,500 tons/year Based on average concentrations waste flows contain a total POP load of 3,500 tons/year.

17. 17 BiPRO Next material flow

18. 18 BiPRO Topic 3 Methods for establishment of limit values and corresponding suggestions Annex IV

19. 19 BiPRO Assessment Methodologies and their Outcome: Overview low POP content limit (Annex IV) maximum limit (Annex V) No POP waste 99/31/EC POP waste POP content to be irreversibly destroyed POP waste disposal operation may depend on environmental preferability (annex V) xxxxxxx //////////////////////////////////////////////// IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Method 1 for assessment of low POP content limit Method 1 for assessment of maximum limit Method 2 for decision on environmental preferability exemplary application for important cases Proposals for low POP content limits for different POPs (Annex IV) Proposals for maximum limits for different POPs (Annex V) Concentration of POP in waste

20. 20 BiPRO Method 1 related to Annex IV: Basic Principle Lower limitation criteria for determining limit values (Limit value may not be below ) Range for suggestion of limit value Upper limitation criteria for determining limit values (Limit value has to be below) Concentration of POP in waste

21. 21 BiPRO Method 1: Lower Limitation Criteria for Low POP content Limit AAnalytical potential BEnvironmental background contamination CDisposal capacities DEconomic feasibility

22. 22 BiPRO Method 1: Upper Limitation Criteria ZExisting limit values already agreed by European Union Yunacceptable risks to human health and the environment XPrecautionary principle

23. 23 BiPRO 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 ppb0.1 ppb Analytical sensitivity in different waste matrices

24. 24 BiPRO Target function II (Precautionary principle) "Each party shall …take …measures to reduce the total releases…with the goal of their continuing minimization and, where feasible, ultimate elimination " (Stockholm Convention Article 5-7) target function result after application of target function range

25. 25 BiPRO Results for Criterion A: Analytical potential Dioxins:0.1 ppb for PCDD/PCDF-TEQ PCBs:1 ppm individual congener 30 ppm total PCB (based on Σ 6 cong. x 5) POP pesticides:1 ppm other POPs:1 ppm

26. 26 BiPRO Criterion A: Analytical Potential for Dioxin Measurements Detection method: HRGC/HRMS Cost (relative) Dioxin concentration detected (TEQ) StandardLimitation Crit. A Cost for dioxin measurement in most unfavourable matrix 0.01 ppb 2.0 0.1 ppb1.0 ppb10 ppb 1.0 1.5

27. 27 BiPRO Results for Criterion B: Environmental POP levels (soil) background concentration uncertainty factor criterion B dioxin0.001 ppb100.01 ppb PCBs1 ppm1010 ppm POP pesticides 0.1 ppm10010 ppm other POPs 0.1 ppm10010 ppm

28. 28 BiPRO Modelled mean contamination levels for soil in European countries ( EMEP data base ) Country PCCD/F [pg TEQ/g] PCB [ng/g] HCB [ng/g] 10 -3 ppb10 -3 ppm AT0.9323.310.37 BE2.8440.150.23 CY0.030.250.02 CZ1.4420.130.24 DE1.5640.020.27 DK0.6313.090.20 EE0.298.840.33 ES0.267.040.15 FI0.2312.240.44 FR0.9417.750.22 GR0.242.380.06 HU0.5612.800.36 IE0.218.720.27 Country PCCD/F [pg TEQ/g] PCB [ng/g] HCB [ng/g] 10 -3 ppb10 -3 ppm IT0.6719.260.20 LT0.369.610.27 LU2.8825.990.26 LV0.298.840.31 MT0.030.130.02 NL1.8146.960.25 PL0.7513.720.32 PT0.216.630.19 SE0.3111.520.29 SI0.7517.680.33 SK0.8113.150.33 UK0.7033.220.38

29. 29 BiPRO Results for Criterion C: Disposal Capacities limit valueadditional amounts of waste capacities available serious capacity problems expected Dioxins:  5 ppb  0.4 Mio. t okby 1 ppb PCB:  5 ppm  1.5 Mio. t okby 1 ppm HCB, HCH, HxBB ≥ 10 ppm< 1 Mio. tokno problems expected* POP pesticides ≥ 10 ppm< 1 Mio. tokno problems expected* * based on available data

30. 30 BiPRO Criterion C: Disposal Capacities “Low POP content limits should be realistic against the background of disposal capacities” Material flowsScenario for low limit value Needed quantities Comparison to available capacities (Transport, disposal, administration) Realistic? YES NO Continue with higher limit value Use as lower limitation criterion Assessment of possibility and time frame to build up sufficient capacities

31. 31 BiPRO Correlation of Low POP content Limit and Waste Quantities: Dioxins 1 ppb5 ppb10 ppb15 ppb quantity POP waste [kt] limit value 100 300 450 2,800

32. 32 BiPRO Results for Criterion D: Economic Feasibility Feasible limit values: Dioxins (TEQ):10 ppb PCB:30 ppm* POP pesticides:1 ppm other POPs:1 ppm * total PCB in terms of Σ 6 Cong. x 5

33. 33 BiPRO Criterion D: Economic feasibility “Low POP content Limits have to be in accordance with economic feasibility” Material flowsScenario for low limit value Consequences for POP waste quantities Monetary impacts compared to status quo Feasibility against economic parameters Feasible? YES NO Continue with higher limit value Use as lower limitation criterion

34. 34 BiPRO Correlation of Low POP content Limit and Waste Quantities: Dioxins

35. 35 BiPRO Examples for important economic impacts due to dioxin Low POP contents Limits (5, 10, 15 ppb) Recovery of aluminium filter dust -limit value of 5 ppb would reduce recovery potential significantly (around 10,000 t estimated)  minimum additional costs 2 mio. € expected -limit value of 10 ppb and 15 ppb would have only smaller impacts (around 2,000 t estimated) Recovery of fly ash in asphalt -limit value of 5 ppb would reduce recovery potential significantly (around 100,000 t estimated) -limit value of 10 ppb and 15 ppb would have only smaller impacts (around 10,000 t and 2,000 t estimated) conclusion: economic feasibility at a Low POP content Limit of 10 ppb

36. 36 BiPRO Correlation of Low POP content Limit and Quantities of POP Waste: PCB

37. 37 BiPRO 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. 38 BiPRO Low POP content Limit: Overall result of the lower limitation criteria CriterionB 0.01 ppb0.1 ppb5 ppb10 ppb dioxins PCBs POP pesticides other POPs ACD c CriterionC 5 ppm10 ppm30 ppm BA and C c CriterionA 1 ppm10 ppm Bno limitations by C and D c Criterion A 1 ppm10 ppm Bno limitations by C and D c

39. 39 BiPRO 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 Source:Basel Convention General technical Guideline on ESM of POP wastes (final); Technical Guidelines on ESM of PCB/PCTs (final)* *adopted by COP 7 under the Basel Convention, Geneva 2004

40. 40 BiPRO 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. 41 BiPRO Risk assessment All waste flows of the analysed POP waste flows have been checked on most critical but realistic ways of disposal. 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. POP relevant material flows disposal paths evaluation on critical exposure risk Ranking

42. 42 BiPRO Contaminated material placed directly onto or mixed with soil Atmospheric deposition direct exposure Exposure via food chain slow diffusion /low transfer rates for hydrophobic, lipophilic substances between soil layers absorption/ingestion from upper soil layers

43. 43 BiPRO Assessment of critical paths tolerable PCCD/F level in eggs:3 pg TEQ/g fat* uncertainty factor:10 (following risk assessment) level where unacceptable risks can not be excluded: 30 pg/g fat assumption: 0.9 ppb contaminated material  elevation by 7.5 pg/g fat in eggs 4 ppb contaminated material  elevation > 30 pg/g fat in eggs unacceptable risks can not be excluded by 4 ppb Low POP content limit * 2001/2375/EC

44. 44 BiPRO 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) CZAction limit recreational areas1 ppb DEAction limit residential areas1 ppb HUAction limit less sensitive soil1 ppb SEGuidance value less sensitive0.25 ppb EU Sewage sludge for agricultural application 0.1 ppb (draft)

45. 45 BiPRO Risk and exposure assessment for Total PCB "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] EPA risk and exposure assessment of PCBs

46. 46 BiPRO 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. 47 BiPRO Overall result for method 1: Low POP content limit PCB Concentration of PCB in waste Criterion X 5 ppm 10 ppm 30 ppm Criterion C Criteria B Criterion A,D 50 ppm Criterion Z, Y Proposal for Low POP content limit option 1option 2

48. 48 BiPRO Overall result for method 1: Low POP content limit POP pesticides Concentration of POP pesticides in waste Criterion X 1 ppm 10 ppm Criteria A Criterion B 50 ppm Criterion Z, Y Proposal for Low POP content limit option 1option 2

49. 49 BiPRO Overall result for method 1: Low POP content limit other POPs Concentration of other POPs in waste Criterion X 1 ppm 10 ppm Criterion A B 50 ppm Criterion Z, Y Proposal for Low POP content limit option 1option 2

50. 50 BiPRO Overall result for method 1: Low POP content limit PCDD/PCDF (Standard procedure) Concentration of dioxins in waste Criterion X 0.1/0.01 ppb 1 ppb 5 ppb Criterion A, B Criteria Y Criterion C 10 ppb Criterion D problems to suggest low POP content limit 15 ppb Criterion Z ?

51. 51 BiPRO First approach to solve the contradiction By means of Article 7, N° 6 "The Commission may... adopt additional measures relating to the implementation of this Article." Ban to directly place waste material onto or mix with soil if dioxin concentration of 1 ppb is exceeded. POP relevant waste flows disposal paths evaluation on critical exposure risk Ranking Next critical exposure path: use of PCDD/PCDF contaminated material in asphalt for road construction Low POP content limit is set at 15 ppb for dioxin contamination

52. 52 BiPRO PCDD/PCDF contaminated material in asphalt for road construction Atmospheric deposition direct exposure Exposure via food chain slow diffusion /low transfer rates for hydrophobic, lipophilic substances between soil layers absorption/ingestion from upper soil layers

53. 53 BiPRO Results of selected studies Use of fly ash as filler in asphalt for road construction [source: Environmental impact Report – National Waste Management Plans (LCA-AVI-vliegas, final report 2002, TAUW)] leakage rate: max. 1% in 100 years Low POP content limit of 15 ppb PCDD/PCDF-TEQ will not lead to any unacceptable risks

54. 54 BiPRO Contradiction of lower and upper limitation criteria Concentration of dioxins in waste Criterion X 0.1/0.01 ppb 5 ppb Criteria A, B 1 ppb Criterion Y Criterion C 10 ppb Criterion D 15 ppb Criterion Z

55. 55 BiPRO Concentration of dioxins in waste Criterion X 0.1/0.01 ppb 5 ppb 10 ppb Criteria A, B Criterion C Criterion D 15 ppb Criterion Z, Y Ban to directly place onto or mix with soil if PCDD/PCDF-TEQ of 1 ppb is exceeded (R 10) Selected solution of contradiction (first approach) Proposal for low POP content limit option 1option 2

56. 56 BiPRO Contradiction of lower and upper limitation criteria Concentration of dioxins in waste Criterion X 0.1/0.01 ppb 1 ppb Criteria A, B Criterion Y 5 ppb Criterion C 10 ppb Criterion D 15 ppb Criterion Z

57. 57 BiPRO Selected solution to solve contradiction (second approach) suggested low POP content limit amendment of annex V Concentration of dioxins in waste 0.1/0.01 ppb Criteria A, B 15 ppb Criterion Z 1 ppb Criteria Y,C,D Recovery of metal containing dusts in high temperature thermal processes Recovery of ashes by thermoplastic encapsulation (e.g. asphalt filler)

58. 58 BiPRO Suggested low POP content limits 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 Σ 6 Cong. x 5 Option 1 Option 2 15 ppb* or 1 ppb** 50 ppm

59. 59 BiPRO 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 others (< 1%) 2% Sinter plants - FGT-residues 4% MSWI - hydroxide sludge 1% Sinter plants - filter dust 5% PP biomass - mixed ashes 3% MSWI - APC residues 6% Sec. Alu - filter dust 2% not covered 77%

60. 60 BiPRO 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 MSWI - APC residues 1% Sec. Alu - filter dust 1% not covered 97% Sinter plants - filter dust 1% others (< 1%) 0%

61. 61 BiPRO 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 MSWI - APC residues 1% not covered 98% others (< 1%) 1%

62. 62 BiPRO 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 not covered 18% others (< 1%) 0% EEEs - large equipment 82%

63. 63 BiPRO 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. 64 BiPRO Topic 3 Methods for establishment of limit values and corresponding suggestions Annex V

65. 65 BiPRO Assessment Methodologies and their Outcome: Annex V low POP content limit (Annex IV) maximum limit (Annex V) No POP waste 99/31/EC POP waste POP content to be irreversibly destroyed POP waste disposal operation may depend on environmental preferability (Annex V) xxxxxxx //////////////////////////////////////////////// IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Method 1 for assessment of low POP content limit Method 1 for assessment of maximum limit Method 2 for decision on environmental preferability exemplary application for important cases Proposals for low POP content limits for different POPs (Annex IV) Proposals for maximum limits for different POPs (Annex V) Concentration of POP in waste

66. 66 BiPRO Criteria for Maximum Limits (Annex V): Basic principle Restriction to Annex V wastes: EWC 17 bulky residues from construction and demolition EWC 10, 16, 19solid 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) Leaching potential and Long-time leaching behaviour crucial assessment factors 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

67. 67 BiPRO 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 ) Source 1) to 6): LCA AVI fly ash, 2002 (all values are applicable to a 100 year period); other sources yield similar results What leakage rates can be expected in appropriate landfill sites? Leachate concentrations to be expected following state of the art: Proposal: appropriate annual leachate rate 10 -6 Additional protective effect of sealing layers as requested under 1999/31/EC not yet taken into account

68. 68 BiPRO 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 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 Worst case estimate based on leaching rate for solidified waste

69. 69 BiPRO 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. 70 BiPRO 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. 71 BiPRO Method to determine an environmentally preferable solution 1.Different types of environmental contamination need to be compared  relative examination 2.Alternatives are measured against a benchmark (incineration) 3.The assessment covers three dimensions: a.Emissions of POPs b.Emissions of other pollutants, resources and energy consumption c.Relevant risks to human health and the environment 4.In each dimension, -2/-1/0/1/2 credits can be allocated Principles

72. 72 BiPRO Method to determine an environmentally preferable solution 5.Dimension can be weighted differently by the competent authority, depending on local contamination settings, within a pre-set range 6.Environmental preferability is given if the credits obtained by an alternative option are above 0. 7.The sum of weighting factor used is 3, with a minimum value of 0.5, and a maximum factor of 2. 8.Credits are awarded following the scheme below: Environmental performanceequivalent to benchmark 0 inferior to benchmark -1 remarkably inferior to benchmark: -2 stronger than benchmark 1 remarkably stronger than benchmark 2 Principles (ct‘d)

73. 73 BiPRO Method to determine an environmentally preferable solution Performance \ Criteria Bench- mark Option XRelationCreditsWeightTotal Performance  POP discharge air water waste  Other emissions (e.g. heavy metals, GHG, ozone precursors, acidifying substances, other)  Risks, uncertainties Total3

74. 74 BiPRO Exemplary case 1: Waste, intended disposal route, and benchmark Waste code and waste designation 19 01 13* Fly ash containing dangerous substances OriginMunicipal solid waste incineration Contamination15 ppb PCDD/PCDF-TEQ Amount100 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) BenchmarkThermal destruction Period of disposalFebruary and March 2005 TransportIntended option:100 km road transport to hazardous waste landfill Benchmark: 200 km to thermal destruction facility HandlingSafe handling and compliance with occupational exposure limits guaranteed

75. 75 BiPRO Exemplary case 1: POP emissions  POP discharge benchmarkoption X air1.5 µg0 leachate0< 1.5 µg / year waste< 4000 µg0 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.

76. 76 BiPRO Exemplary case 1: Other emissions  Other emissionsbenchmarkoption X CO 2 emission for destruction/solidification 23 t CO 2 15.6 t CO 2 CO 2 emission for transport 0.4 t CO 2 0.2 t CO 2 Credits for criterion  :+1 Justification: Option X is considered environmentally preferable due to the following reasons: Heavy metals released during incineration are adsorbed to a large extent to flue gas treatment residues. Thus, no important difference exists in potential emissions from the two alternative disposal pathways. Therefore, with respect to emissions other than POPs, greenhouse gas emissions constitute the most important argument. The intended treatment causes less CO 2 emissions compared to the benchmark technology. Also lower emission from transport due to lower distance are in favour to the intended option.

77. 77 BiPRO Exemplary case 1: Risks, uncertainties Risks, uncertaintiesbenchmarkoption X legal complianceo.k. long term safetyassureduncertain 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.

78. 78 BiPRO Exemplary case 1: Result Performance\CriteriaCreditsWeightTotal Performance  POP emissions+11  Other emissions+11 Risks, uncertainties–11 Total3+1 The intended waste treatment option is environmentally preferable

79. 79 BiPRO Reporting Format - I Notification of treatment and disposal of POP waste authorized as environmentally preferable to irreversible destruction Commission (Competent body with address): To be forwarded to (Contact Member States): Notifying authority (Name, address): Contact person: Tel.: Fax: e-mail Date: Waste generator (Name, address) Contact person: Tel.: Fax: e-mail Waste disposer (Name, address) Contact person: Tel.: Fax: e-mail Site of generation and process:Actual site of disposal:

80. 80 BiPRO Reporting Format – II Notification of treatment and disposal of POP waste authorized as environmentally preferable to irreversible destruction General description of waste: Waste code: Origin: Contamination: Amount: Intended disposal route: Intended date or period of disposal Measurement information: Measurement data: Measurement methods Technology and precautionary measures applied, incl. pre-treatment and/or solidification or stabilisation measures: Tests on leakage rate available: Measurement data: Measurement methods: Transport to disposal site (distance, means): Considered disposal benchmark: Specifications: Additional specification regarding waste handling:

81. 81 BiPRO Draft reporting format - Performance matrix for justification of alternative waste management operations Performance related to benchmark creditsweighttotal 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. 82 BiPRO Assessment Methodologies and their Outcome: Overview low POP content limit maximum limit No POP waste 99/31/EC POP waste POP content to be irreversibly destroyed POP waste disposal operation may depend on environmental preferability (annex V) xxxxxxx //////////////////////////////////////////////// IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Method 1 for assessment of low POP content limit Method 1 for assessment of maximum limit Method 2 for decision on environmental preferability exemplary application for important cases Proposals for low POP content limits for different POPs Proposals for maximum limits for different POPs Concentration of POP in waste

83. 83 BiPRO Specification of the required solidification and stabilisation and other restrictions solidification / stabilisation 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?) environ- mentally prefer- able compared to irreversible de- struction? landfill possible irreversible destruction yes no

84. 84 BiPRO 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% Source 1) to 6): LCA AVI fly ash, 2002 (all values are applicable to a 100 year period) What are appropriate leakage rates? Leachate concentrations to be expected following state of the art: Proposal: appropriate annual leachate rate 10 -6

85. 85 BiPRO When is a solidification required? low leakage rate  solidification not required because leakage rate is below minimum requirements leakage rate not relevant  irreversible destruction required; solidification makes no sense inappropriate leakage rate  solidification required; leakage rate has to be ensured by appropriate solidification because minimum requirements are not fulfilled by the properties of the waste itself concentration of POP in wasteannual leakage rate below 10 -6 /yearabove 10 -6 /year below maximum limit values above maximum limit values

86. 86 BiPRO 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. 87 BiPRO measurement techniques

88. 88 BiPRO Measurement of POPs in waste matrices: Problem of Matrix “WASTE” = liquids  solids “soil like”  “plastics” homogeneous  complex mixture > interferences  no fixed matrix “waste” from an analytical point of view  no fixed method for matrix “waste” from an analytical point of view  no fixed analytical sensitivity as no fixed matrix

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

90. 90 BiPRO POPs measurement standards for waste Recommendation for standard requirements “Modular system including the different analytical techniques used and recommendation which technique can be used for which matrix” “Final decision on the methods used has to be taken by the analyst depending on individual matrix” “Minimum performance criteria have to be accomplished” (QA/QC) Standards to be developed or under development by CEN/TC 292 (sampling, analysis, leaching) Harmonised European standards not yet available

91. 91 BiPRO Total package to support implementation groups of waste categories + testing proposal methodology for environmental preferability case studies reporting format requirements for solidification measurement techniques