You are on page 1of 116

Working Group on Thermal Treatment of Waste

Subgroup on APC Residues from W-t-E Plants

Management of APC residues from W-t-E Plants


An overview of management options and treatment methods

Second edition, October 2008

ISWA-WG Thermal Treatment of Waste Subgroup APC Residues from W-t-E plants

Management of APC residues from W-t-E Plants


An overview of management options and treatment methods

Thomas Astrup Department of Environmental Engineering Technical University of Denmark

October, 2008

Preface
This report is produced by ISWAs WGTT (Working Group on Thermal Treatment of Waste). The work has been carried out by a subgroup on Air-Pollution-Control (APC) residues from Waste-to-Energy (W-t-E) Plants. Associate Professor Thomas Astrup from Department of Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Denmark has produced the report with inputs from the subgroup.

Contributing authors
The report is produced with contributions from members of the WGTT subgroup on APC Residues from W-t-E Plants: Henrik rnebjerg, I/S Vestforbrnding, Denmark (Chairman) Robert Morin, Veolia Environmental Services, France Jean-Francois Brua, LAB SA, France Henning Friege, Stadtwerke Dsseldorf AG / AWISTA GmbH, Germany u Conrad Bader, Von Roll Umwelttechnik AG, Switzerland

Coordinating authors
Thomas Astrup, Technical University of Denmark, Denmark Kim Crillesen, I/S Vestforbrnding, Denmark Kirsten Bojsen, I/S Vestforbrnding, Denmark Tina Beneld from The Chartered Institution of Wastes Management (UK) is greatly acknowledged for proof-reading the text. The authors are, however, fully responsible for any remaining mistakes.

ii

Summary
Today solid residues from modern Waste-to-Energy facilities constitute the primary emission route to the surrounding environment. Although bottom ashes are generated in larger quantities, the main pollution potential is found in the air-pollutioncontrol (APC) residues originating from cleaning the ue gases before emission to air. While a range of dierent types of APC residues exists the overall properties and environmental concerns are the same, regardless of the incinerator and country of origin. Research and development over the recent decades have produced numerous treatment and disposal solutions for APC residues, some of these only tested in the lab while others are available commercially. The documentation of this range of management solutions is generally very poor: public reports may not be available on commercial solutions while thoroughly investigated lab scale processes may never go beyond the lab due to market constraints. In all cases, developers and researchers may claim that their particular solution is the best available. This situation makes it increasingly dicult for stakeholders to compare management solutions, and for operators to select the right treatment and disposal for the residues. This report attempts to provide an overview of available treatment techniques, commercial solutions, and discuss challenges and barriers as well as provide suggestions for environmental evaluation of relevant management solutions. Currently, no general consensus appear to exist regarding residue disposal solutions on a worldwide level. In most countries, residues are treated to minimize future release of contaminants (mainly salts and heavy metals, but also dioxins receive attention) and then landlled under varying conditions (either traditional surface level landlls with leachate collection and top covers, or subsurface disposal sites such as old salt mines). It cannot be recommended that APC residues are landlled without prior treatment. Some management solutions facilitate utilization of the residues or properties of the residues. This includes the use of residues for neutralization of acidic solutions, the use of residues as aggregate ller in cement or cement-like materials and asphalt. In Europe, for example, APC residues are used as backlling material in salt mines as well as in production of asphalt for roads. As such no treatment technique and management solution can be singled out as the best option; choices depend on local and regional traditions, legislation as well as market conditions (e.g. for secondary construction materials). It is recommended that management alternatives are thoroughly documented and evaluated with respect to environmental performance before decision making. A common approach to do this systematically is by means of a life-cycle assessment (LCA); this report provides an example of an LCA-screening as well as an outline of the data needed for such an assessment.

iii

A few general aspects can be emphasized: Treatment. Residues should always be stabilized or treated to minimize future release by leaching. Stabilization and treatment should naturally reect the choice of nal disposal. Transportation. For solutions only associated with minor emissions or energy consumption, the transportation of residues often represent the main environmental load. Energy. For solutions associated with signicant energy consumptions, e.g. thermal treatment, the environmental benets from the treatment should be critically evaluated against the environmental load from energy consumption. Leaching. Metal leaching from residues after nal disposal may continue for thousands of years. Although the actual consequences cannot be determined today, the potential impacts from this long-term release should be assessed and accounted for. Contaminant dispersion. Spreading of contaminants, e.g. heavy metals, via construction materials should be avoided. In case of utilization for construction purposes, the materials should be used in major projects controlled by the authorities and the fate of the materials after demolition should be determined beforehand. Environmental assessment. Life-cycle assessments is found useful for evaluation of residue management solutions, however collection and evaluation of the needed technology data is rather dicult, and the assessment should be accompanied by a critical review of assumption, system boundaries, assessment criteria, and data.

iv

Contents
Preface Summary 1 Introduction 1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Report structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Management and regulatory framework for APC 2.1 Residue generation and characteristics . . . . . . . 2.2 Environmental problems and treatment strategies . 2.3 Overview of management solutions . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Individual countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Treatment techniques 3.1 Extraction and separation 3.2 Chemical stabilization . . 3.3 Solidication . . . . . . . 3.4 Thermal treatment . . . . residues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i iii 1 1 1 2 3 3 5 6 8 19 20 22 23 24 27 27 28 31 31 31 33 37 37 38 38 41 45 47

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

4 Recovery and utilization 4.1 Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Utilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Final disposal options 5.1 Subsurface disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Surface disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Commercial Technologies 7 Solutions and evaluation 7.1 Potentially available solutions . . . . . 7.2 Development and documentation level 7.3 Technology evaluation . . . . . . . . . 7.4 Final remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Recommendations 9 Literature

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

Appendices A Technology information B LCA-screening of residue management: An example B.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B.2 Results and discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B.3 General conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

52 A-1 B-1 B-1 B-2 B-6 B-7

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

vi

Chapter 1

Introduction
1.1 Background

Within recent years, Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) has become a much more valuable resource in many countries. The transition from a mere waste problem to a resource has to a great extent been enabled by modern Waste-to-Energy facilities, waste incinerators in particular. Life-cycle thinking and more holistic approaches for evaluation of environmental aspects has been introduced with respect to waste management; this also has consequences for the management of solid residues from Waste-to-Energy facilities and may change the way these residues are managed in the future. Today a large number of management options exists, and new potential solutions are suggested on a regular basis. Many of these new as well as existing solutions are not suciently documented. The data needed to carry out a life-cycle based environmental evaluation are in by far the most cases extremely dicult to acquire. In order to assist plant owners, technology developers and public authorities in optimizing their choice between the range of residue management technologies, the report provides an overview of the documentation level and environmental aspects of these technologies. The report also provides an outline of the data needed to perform a life-cycle assessment on these technologies.

1.2

Scope

This report presents a short overview of potential management options for AirPollution-Control (APC) residues as well as outlines potential barriers and solutions. The report focus on residues generated at Municipal Solid Waste incinerators. The report does not provide in-depth coverage of all aspects of APC residue management and treatment, for example chemical reactions in specic treatment processes, and does not provide specic information on all available treatment options on a global scale. The report does, however, oer a systematic overview of potential solutions based on research literature as well as available information from technology owners. The report is intended to serve as a catalogue and guideline for stakeholders as well as to provide a basis for evaluating suggestions for residue management solutions. This is done by outlining principles of potential residue treatment, recovery and disposal techniques. The development level of these techniques is further assessed and emphasized in the text.

The report does not include discussions of treatment costs as economical aspects may change signicantly with time and geography, and because reported cost may not provide an accurate basis for decisions but have to be requested according to specic needs. The report only includes processes and technologies for which it has been possible to acquire a reasonable level of information. The authors, however, welcome relevant information and data and want to encourage the readers to forward such information to subgroup chairman Henrik rnebjerg (hoe@vestfor.dk, I/S Vestforbrnding, Denmark). The report constitute a revised and updated version of the rst report on APC residue management from ISWA (ISWA, 2003).

1.3

Report structure

The report is divided into two sections: one providing the overview mentioned above, and another providing state-of-the-art data on commercially available residue technologies. These data are kindly supplied by technology owners and presented in Appendix A. Appendix B provides an example of a life-cycle assessment screening of APC residue management. Chapter 1. Background and scope of this document. Chapter 2. Introduction to the residues, environmental issues, overview of major management strategies and legislative aspects, as well as specic information concerning selected countries. Chapter 3. Introduction to residue treatment techniques, operation principles, and development status. Chapter 4. Introduction to recovery and utilization techniques, operation principles, and development status. Chapter 5. Introduction to nal disposal options, operation principles, and technology status. Chapter 6. Brief overview of major commercial residue treatment and management technologies. Chapter 7. Overview of status for residue management solutions, documentation level, assessment approach for environmental impacts, outline of important aspects for consideration, qualitative evaluation of individual treatment processes. Chapter 8. Main recommendations based on the report.

Chapter 2

Management and regulatory framework for APC residues


2.1 Residue generation and characteristics

Air-Pollution-Control (APC) residues residues from waste incineration facilities exist in a number of dierent varieties depending on the type of incinerator and the type of ue gas cleaning equipment installed. The chemical composition of the residues also depends on the waste incinerated. Typically, however, APC residues are a very ne grained powder, ranging from light grey to dark grey. If detailed information about ue gas cleaning equipment and residue characteristics is needed, please refer to IAWG (1997) and EC (2006). Overall, two dierent types of residues exist: Dry and semi-dry residue systems. Slaked lime is injected into the ue gas, either in dry form or as a slurry. This is done to neutralize acidic components in the ue gas, and is typically done before removing the y ash from the ue gas. Fly ash, reaction products, and unreacted lime is typically removed in fabric lters. Activated coal may be injected for dioxin removal and removed together with the y ash. Dry and semi-dry systems typically generate a single residue. Wet residue systems. Fly ash is typically removed before neutralizing acidic components. After this, the ue gas is scrubbed in one, two, or a multistage arrangement of scrubbers. The scrubber solutions are then treated to produce sludge and gypsum. Wet systems typically generate more than one residue. It should be noted that ue gas cleaning technologies, and thereby APC residues, exist in many varieties and congurations; more than mentioned here. The above two overall types of residues, however, cover most modern waste incinerators worldwide. The management of these residues is generally not depending on individual characteristics and variations in the residue quality. Consequently, this report treats APC residues collectively from a management point of view, regardless the type of residue. Table 2.1 provides an overview of individual components in the two overall APC residue types. The chemical characteristics of APC residues vary signicantly from plant to plant and region to region, however on a general level the chemical composition is comparable. Table 2.2 provides typical ranges of important ash components.

Table 2.1: Presence of individual components in residues from the two major types of ue gas cleaning systems. Component Fly ash Boiler ash Excess lime Reaction products (salts) Dioxin sorbent Sludge Gypsum Chloride salts Dry and semi-dry systems Always Always Always (usually included) Always (usually included) Optional (usually included) Wet systems Always Always Always (in wastewater) Optional (usually handled separately) Always (sometimes mixed with y ashes) Optional (recovery possible) Optional (recovery possible)

Table 2.2: Typical ranges of important residue components (IAWG, 1997). Units in mg/kg. Element Al As Ba Ca Cd Cl Cr Cu Fe Hg K Mg Mn Mo Na Ni Pb S Sb Si V Zn Fly ash 49,000-90,000 37-320 330-3100 74,000-130,000 50-450 29,000-210,000 140-1100 600-3200 12,000-44,000 0.7-30 22,000-62,000 11,000-19,000 800-1900 15-150 15,000-57,000 60-260 5300-26,000 11,000-45,000 260-1100 95,000-210,000 29-150 9000-70,000 Dry / semi-dry 12,000-83,000 18-530 51-14,000 110,000-350,000 140-300 62,000-380,000 73-570 16-1700 2600-71,000 0.1-51 5900-40,000 5100-14,000 200-900 9-29 7600-29,000 19-710 2500-10,000 1400-25,000 300-1,100 36,000-120,000 8-62 7000-20,000 Wet 21,000-39,000 41-210 55-1600 87,000-200,000 150-1400 17,000-51,000 80-560 440-2400 20,000-97,000 2.2-2300 810-8600 19,000-170,000 5000-12,000 2-44 720-3400 20-310 3300-22,000 2700-6000 80-200 78000 25-86 8100-53,000

2.2

Environmental problems and treatment strategies

Apart from working safety aspects, the main problem related to APC residues is the potential release of contaminant to the environment. This release may potentially occur by several routes, however the primary is by leaching from the residues once landlled or otherwise placed at their nal destination. On modern plants the residues are generally handled and transported in closed systems or under moist conditions to avoid dusting, therefore these activities are not considered important from an environmental perspective. The main environmental concern with respect to APC residues is leaching of: Easily soluble salts such as Cl and Na. Although not toxic for humans in typical concentration levels these components may signicantly aect ecosystems and spoil drinking water resources. Heavy metals such as Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, and Zn. Heavy metals and trace elements can potentially be present in concentrations harmful for humans as well as for ecosystems. As such, leaching of these components has generally been the primary concern and has also received the greatest research focus. Dioxins. Although dioxins and furans do not easily leach, release of these contaminants is of major concern because of their toxicity. In order to minimize impacts on the environment, the release of the above contaminants should be reduced as much as possible. Ideally this means that these constituents should either be eectively bound in the residue matrix or simply removed leaving the remaining materials harmless. This may not always be possible to achieve, however APC residues should always be treated to minimize potential future release. Research and development related to APC residue treatment and management has for the above reasons traditionally been aimed at developing and evaluating techniques for reducing leaching from residues after nal placement. In the case of dioxins, also actual destruction of these components has been a focus. This has resulted in a range of techniques discussed in Chapter 3 (please refer to this chapter for further details): Extraction and separation Chemical stabilization Solidication Thermal treatment The overall aim has been to treat the residues so that landll acceptance criteria are fullled, but also various material related criteria may have to be fullled for example in the case of utilization. The above techniques reect dierent approaches to meet these goals. The reason for development of these dierent types of techniques, rather than using a single process worldwide, has been dierences in local traditions, regulations, market conditions, and political focus. In almost all countries, some level of treatment of the residues are required before further utilization or landlling. A commonly applicable denition of what

is an acceptable level of stabilization does not exist as criteria and conditions dier worldwide. Treatment and stabilization of residues should, however, provide a residue quality appropriate for the intended nal destination, regardless whether the associated criteria are environmentally or technically based. From an environmental point of view, residue treatment may not always be an issue of providing the most inert material. As discussed in Chapter 7 using a lot of energy and resources in the treatment phase without evaluating the achieved benets relative to the type of disposal may not necessarily be environmentally sound.

2.3
2.3.1

Overview of management solutions


Residue management

Overall, three main routes for APC residues exist: Utilization as aggregates Material recovery Landlling In Europe, either of these options include some degree of treatment and/or stabilization: 1) the residues may not have the necessary technical quality needed for utilization, 2) the utilization option integrates stabilization of the residues, 3) the recovery of materials requires treatment of the residue, and 4) the leaching properties of the residues need to be improved before nal placement. A large number of combinations of treatment, stabilization, utilization, and landlling processes exists on an international level. These combinations are often a consequence of local traditions and legislation. A rough estimate is that in the order of 2030 technologies is in use or has been suggested worldwide. Regardless of these variations, APC residue management can for simplicity be grouped according to the three main options mentioned above. Chapters 35 provides further details on available treatment technologies, utilization and recovery, as well as nal disposal.

2.3.2

EU Legislation

APC residues are categorized as hazardous waste and residue management is regulated within this framework. The EU is currently in the process of updating legislation and introducing new overall strategies on waste: these initiatives will aect the management of APC residues. The most important of theexpectedconsequences are outlined in the following. Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of Waste With this thematic strategy, the EU aims to decrease waste quantities, increase recycling and material recovery as well as increase energy recovery from waste, among other issues. Introducing the principles discussed in the strategy into EU legislation and regulation, may also give rise to changes for APC residues: Reduction of the number of waste specic directives (e.g. merging the Directive on Hazardous Waste into the Waste Framework Directive)

Denitions regarding the transition of waste to secondary products Quality standards for recycled and secondary materials and products Denitions of recovery and disposal activities Introduction of life-cycle thinking The above issues are not dened in detail in the thematic strategy, but will be dened during the actual implementation process. Introduction of life-cycle thinking into waste management regulation may potentially have a large impact on the way residue management is evaluated and argued. In Chapter 7, this document provides an example of a life-cycle assessment on residue management alternatives. Waste Incineration Directive The process of revising the Waste Incineration Directive is expected to start around 2008. This may aect emission levels from incinerators and subsequently also the composition of residues. The revised directive is expected around 2012. Waste Framework Directive The directive provides a denition of waste utilization. This primarily aects import and export of APC residues in EU Member States. The current revision of the Waste Framework Directive suggests a new and more concise denition of utilization and end-of-waste criteria. It is unclear how this will aect APC residues in the future. The revised directive may also allow more possibilities for the mixing of hazardous waste fractions, provided that the environmental burden is not increased. Landll Directive The criteria for waste acceptance at landlls are minimum criteria and Member States may dene more stringent criteria. In any case, APC residues do not comply with these criteria and need to be stabilized before landlling. Statutory Order on Transport Exchange of APC residues between Member States is regulated according to the Statutory Order on Transport. Member States may dene more restrictive standards for residue treatment, and may deny import/export of residues on this account. Statutory Order on POP The Statutory Order on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), including dioxins, regulates management of waste containing these compounds. For APC residues, the content of dioxins/furans is relevant with a limit value of 15 g/kg. Generally, APC residues are anticipated to be below this limit, however in cases exceeding the limit dioxins should be destroyed or the residues should be safely landlled.

2.3.3

General challenges

Treatment and management of APC residues may face various challenges: technical, economical, legislative, and environmental. Strategies to meet these challenges are highly dependent on local and/or regional conditions, and are generally reected by the management option of choice in individual countries. In section 2.4 short overviews of the situation in selected countries are provided. A few overall principles with respect to the environmental aspects, however, should be emphasized: Dilution. The principle of mixing hazardous waste with other materials can be regarded as dilution should not be sanctioned. On one hand this limits the possibilities of utilization, but on the other hand potentially uncontrolled dispersion of contaminants in the environment is avoided. Hazardous waste utilization. In extension of the above, the actual concept of utilization of hazardous waste may be questionable: from an overall environmental point of view, it may be wiser to keep contaminants concentrated and conned, and then attempt to minimize and control the release (e.g. by leaching in the case of residues). Resource consumption. Extensive treatment/stabilization and material recovery may involve consumption of signicant quantities of resources such as energy and water. From an overall environmental perspective this may not be benecial (e.g. material recovery requiring more energy than the energy represented by the actual material substituted).

2.4

Individual countries

The following sections present country specic information on management and treatment of APC residues with focus on current management practices, specic legislation and regulation, and important barriers and challenges for residue management and further development.

2.4.1

Denmark

Management practices The current solution in Denmark is to export APC residues to either Norway or Germany. In Norway the residues are utilized for neutralization of waste acid, and in Germany for backlling of salt mines. This solution is not considered permanent by the Danish EPA, however it is unlikely that a permanent solution can be determined at the moment as relevant EU legislation is under revision. In 2004, the major Danish incinerator operators1 initiated a research and development program with the focus to improve APC residue management in Denmark, including evaluating and supporting relevant technologies as well as providing the necessary scientic basis for decision making. The initiative is carried out in accordance with the Danish EPA and nishes in 2009 with conclusions on future solutions for Denmark.
1

DONG Energy A/S, I/S Amagerforbrnding, and I/S Vestforbrnding

Specic legislation No specic statutory order regulates management of APC residues in Denmark. The current policy is not to allow landlling or temporary storage of APC residues in Denmark, treated or not treated. This policy is maintained until a long-term solution is found for management of APC residues from Danish incinerators. Until this, nal disposal in Germany and Norway is allowed. Barriers and challenges So far, a major focus has been to avoid (uncontrolled) spreading of contaminants in the environment and the society. This results in reluctance from authorities to sanction utilization options including production of construction materials based on APC residues. It is unlikely that this will change in the future. Currently, the main challenge for the operators in Denmark is that the Danish authorities have yet to decide whether relevant technologies should be categorized as utilization or disposal. Until such a decision exists, investments in new treatment and utilization technologies in Denmark are unlikely.

2.4.2

France

Management practices APC residues are classied as hazardous waste and are treated as such by all French municipal waste incinerators. The most common treatment is to stabilize and solidify the residue with addition of cement and chemicals. The process is changing both the chemical and physical nature of the APC residues and ensures that even if the monolith deteriorates that the contaminants will remain in the matrix. It is a means to reduce the solubility of traced metals contained in the residues. Once stabilized the residue is buried in a landll permitted for hazardous waste disposal. In 2007, the treatment cost was around 235 Euro/ton of residue, including a 20 Euro/ton environmental tax but excluding transportation costs. The French regulations governing the possibility of exporting APC residues to other countries for underground disposal in abandoned salt mines are facing some interpretation problems and it is dicult at this point in time (2008) to estimate what will be the nal situation with regards to this mode of disposal for APC residues produced by French incinerators. APC residues produced from Flue Gas treatment systems using dry sodium bicarbonate for HCl and SO2 abatement are in some case collected in order to be washed, ltered and partially recycled in the production of sodium carbonate. In France, the Resolest platform has a 50,000 tons (APC residues) per year of production capacity. One incineration plant is equipped to provide a thermal treatment of APC residues. A plasma torch system is used to vitrify the APC residues. Specic legislation The French adaptation of applicable EU directives for Hazardous Waste call for the treatment of solid wastes from ue gas treatment as an hazardous waste associated to the EU Waste Catalog number 19 01 07*.

Barriers and challenges Dierent processes have been studied and tested to wash, separate and recycle some of the APC residues constituents or to use them as an acid neutralizing agent. Due to their specic waste classication it is unlikely that APC residues could avoid being disposed of under anything but hazardous waste regulations unless thoroughly treated by an industrial process that will separate some basic constituents that can be reused as feedstock to other industrial processes. Therefore the barrier to partial recycling is essentially economic, especially when considering the challenge of getting through the required REACH regulation requirements that may apply to this approach.

2.4.3

Germany

Management practices Most German W-t-E plants are equipped with a dry or a semi-dry ue gas cleaning system, the decreasing number of wet systems in recent years is due to high costs for chemicals and waste water handling. APC residues are treated as hazardous waste and are generally processed within the country. There is no relevant export of residues from ue gas cleaning. Former or active salt mines represent the most prominent sink for APC residues. Due to good geological preconditions in the region between the cities of Braunschweig and Halle, many salt mines were founded in the 19th and 20th century. Potassium, Magnesium and Sodium chlorides number among the most important salts mined in this area. The seams are found between 500 and 800 m below ground. The caverns are large enough for the use of heavy trucks. The height of the caverns is in the range of 5 to 10 m. The caverns may break down due to static reasons, especially caused by incautious exploitation as has been practiced in the former GDR. Therefore, backlling of the mines fullls a need. Due to the high amount of soluble salts, APC residues in general, especially all salts from wet scrubber systems are suitable for backlling thus replacing natural resources otherwise needed. This storage method is looked at as extremely safe because of the geological history of the mines. Other mines (coal, iron ore) used for the disposal of APC residues in former years, have been closed down. Few APC residues are used as asphalt construction materials. Small amounts of APC residues are disposed of in normal landlls after various stabilization processes. Recently, Germany introduced ambitious criteria for leaching tests used as a decision criterion for waste disposal. It may therefore be concluded that the amount of more or less stabilized APC residues will decrease again. Less than 10 % of all APC residues are disposed of in underground storage facilities or on landlls suitable for hazardous waste. In 2005, more than 350,000 tonnes APC residues were produced from W-t-E plants. About 200,000 tonnes were recycled without further processing by backlling of salt mines. About 30,000 tonnes were landlled mostly in underground storage. About 120,000 tonnes were processed, partially by stabilization techniques. Specic legislation In Germany, waste management has changed enormously since 2005, when the landlling of organic waste (i.e. household waste or other waste with more than 3 %

10

TOC) was banned after a long transition period. Therefore, the mass ows reported for APC residues in 2005 may not be representative for the years 2006 and 2007. Probably, backlling of salt mines has become even more important. Barriers and challenges The solidication of APC residues with the aim to use these materials as a layer for landlls might be restricted by a forthcoming regulation on the recycling of secondary minerals. Due to their experience with the classical leaching test (DEV H 14, EN/ISO) they prefer the so called pH stat test where the residues are exposed to an acid with a constant pH over some time. With this test, acidic rainfall is simulated. Very often, this test leads to more critical results because normal water used in the classical leaching procedure normally does not destroy solidied materials.

2.4.4

Italy

Management practices Most of the waste to energy plants in Italy are equipped with a dry or a semi-dry ue gas cleaning system, using lime or sodium bicarbonate as alkaline reactant. The use of sodium bicarbonate is now increasing, especially during the revamping of existing plants, in order to comply with emission limits in the EU, without installing any additional wet treatment system. No thorough survey on the APC residues management has been carried out so far in Italy. However, it is known that most facilities dispose of the residues to landlls after a specic treatment, aimed to stabilize and solidify the residues by means of the addition of cement and chemicals so complying with regulatory limit values for waste acceptance in landll. Treatment is mainly performed outside the incineration plant, but there are also some plants that treat APC residues on site. Some Italian facilities, located in Northern Regions, export their untreated APC residues to German salt mines as backlling materials, similar to other European countries. There are nevertheless some examples of alternative forms of management. For instance, in the case of using dry sodium bicarbonate the alkaline salts are collected by the seller and treated in a plant having a capacity of 30,000 tons per year; so a brine suitable for sodium carbonate production is recovered. This practice requires a ue gas double stage ltration system, in order to pull apart alkaline salts from y ash. In 2004 about 4.22 million tons of waste was incinerated in 52 W-t-E plants with a total APC residue production of about 200,000 tons. Specic legislation The Italian legislation (Government Decree n. 152/2006) classies APC residues from waste-to-energy plants as hazardous waste according to the EU Waste Catalogue. The Environment Ministry decree n. 36/2003 also prescribes that landlls can accept only waste whose contaminants content respect the limit values listed in Table 2.3. Also a leaching test (according to the CEN EN 12457 standard) shall be complied with; pollutant concentrations in extracted eluate shall not exceed the limits shown in Table 2.4.

11

Table 2.3: Limit values for waste acceptance in landll, as per decree n. 36/2003. Parameter Unit Limit value PCB mg/kg 50 PCDD & PCDF mg/kg 0.01 Solid content % 25 TOC % <6 Table 2.4: Limit values in eluate for waste acceptance in landll, as per decree n. 36/2003. Parameter Unit Limit value Cr mg/l 7 Cd mg/l 0.2 Cu mg/l 10 Hg mg/l 0.05 Mo mg/l 3 Ni mg/l 4 Pb mg/l 5 Sb mg/l 0.5 Se mg/l 0.7 Zn mg/l 5 Chloride mg/l 2500 Fluoride mg/l 50 Aromatic organic solvents mg/l 4 Nitrogen organic solvents mg/l 2 Chloro-organic solvents mg/l 20 Cyanides (CN) mg/l Sulfates (SO2 ) mg/l 5000 4 DOC mg/l 100 TDS mg/l 10000

Barriers and challenges At present it seems that there are no drivers pushing waste managers for towards alternative options to landll disposal, and it is unlikely that this will change in the near future. Possible use of APC residues in cement kilns or for construction material are hampered by a strict and unclear legislation that makes recovery of material from hazardous waste such as APC residues dicult and costly. Probably only the recovery of alkaline salts from APC residues coming from plants that use sodium bicarbonate will be further implemented, as it can partly overcome the issues related to APC residues management. Also some thermal treatment methods were evaluated and tested in the past, but they were abandoned, because there is no chance that this technology can became commercially viable.

12

2.4.5

The Netherlands

Management practices The Dutch policy with regard to the residues from Waste to Energy Plants (WtE plants) aims towards maximization of useful application and minimization of required volume for disposal of these residues. This policy has led, to date, to a recovery rate of the APC residues of around 50 %. The other half is disposed of in conditioned landlls after cementation (y ash) or in big bags (y ash and ue gas treatment salts). The policy has been put into practice successfully for municipal solid waste incineration (MSWI) y ash and led to the use of this material as a ller in asphalt (as a substitute for lime stone) for road construction. The demand for asphalt llers containing MSWI y ash, however, is limited. As a result only 30 % of the MSWI y ash produced has been utilised as an asphalt ller. A considerable amount of y ash and ue gas treatment salts are being utilised for fortication in German coal and salt mines (it has been adopted by the Council of State in the Netherlands that application of APC residues is called utilisation if it is identied as such in the country of application). The Dutch Waste Management Association (DWMA) has started a project group which is going to identify potentially successful alternatives for y ash utilisation. Specic legislation Annex II (Council decision 2003/33/EC) of the European Directive on the Landll of Waste (Directive 1999/31/EC) is implemented in Dutch legislation. Barriers and challenges Implementation of Annex II makes it more dicult (i.e. more costly) to landll hazardous waste in its untreated form its already forbidden in the Netherlands. Since it is a waste of eort and money to continue with disposal Annex II serves as an incentive for more recovery of APC residues. This may lead to utilization of the sulphates in the form of gypsum and chlorides in the form of calcium chloride.

2.4.6

Norway

Management practices APC residues are categorized as hazardous waste, and thus specic legislation applies (see below). Current practice is that all APC residues are landlled in specic landlls (rock structures). NOAH Langya holds the largest market share. Specic legislation No specic legislation exists for the handling of APC residues. As for waste categorized as hazardous waste this may only be handled and treated by parties with specic permission. Barriers and challenges There is a general political wish to maximize the reuse/recycling of incinerator residues, but no real political will. When it comes to APC residues these con-

13

tain toxic components, and will very likely maintain the classication as hazardous waste, and their disposal will only be categorized as disposal.

2.4.7

Sweden

Management practices The amount of APC residues in Sweden 2006 was 180,000 tonnes and the trend is increasing. The increase is mainly caused by increased incineration capacity. The total amount of waste treated in WtE-plants during 2006 was 4,000,000 tonnes. Approximately half of the waste incinerated was household waste. Currently there are two major ways to handle the APC residues. One way is to send the residues to landll after stabilization. This is still the most common way to treat APC residues. This however will change after 2008 when the landll directive comes in to force. The other way is export to Norway where the residues are utilized for neutralization of waste acid. This method is used by an increasing numbers of WtE plants. Only three of 30 plants handles their APC residues in other ways than the ones presented above. One plant has succeed in classifying their APC as non-hazardous waste and can send the APC residues to a landll for non-hazardous waste. One plant having access to old petroleum storages in the ground beneath their plant is using their residues to rell these storages. The third plant has installed equipment to wash the APC residues with the aim to get them classied as non-hazardous. Although the process is still under development they have succeeded in washing out the chlorides below the acceptance criteria, which means they can send the APC to a landll for hazardous waste. Specic legislation Annex II (Council decision 2003/33/EC) of the European Directive on the Landll of Waste (Directive 1999/31/EC) is implemented in Swedish legislation. The ue gas treatment from the WtE-plants is classied as hazardous waste as in the EU Waste Catalogue number 19 01 07*. If the APC residues exceed the leaching levels in the acceptance criteria the residues have to go to recycling or treatment. Barriers and challenges After 2008 all of the landlls have to fulll the EU landll directive. The plants sending their APC residues to these landlls then have to nd other alternatives. If result from the plant that attempts to clean the APC residues are not promising, the major part of Swedish APC residues will be exported to either Norway or Germany. An alternative currently being looked into is if there can be found a need for neutralization or back-lling in Sweden similar to those in Norway or Germany.

2.4.8

Switzerland

Management practices Most of the 29 W-t-E plants in Switzerland are equipped with sophisticated wet scrubbers as APC systems, a few only still have semi-dry systems using spray dryers. All plants are equipped with Electrostatic Precipitators that separate the lter dust, before the de-dusted ue gas is treated in a scrubber section.

14

Therefore, the main quantity of APC residues consists of lter dust, which is treated in several dierent ways, usually on site. Euents from the scrubber section and a possible APC residues treatment plant (typically acid y ash washing) are in all cases cleaned by precipitation and ltering steps, where solids are separated as sludge. The cleaned euent, still containing the main part of the soluble salts, is usually discharged to the next river. A few plants evaporate the euent to produce salt or brine, which is used for the regeneration of ion exchangers or for de-icing roads during winter time. In 2004 the 29 plant incinerated a quantity of 3,131,809 tonnes of waste in Switzerland, thereby producing 60,726 tonnes of y ash, which was roughly disposed of as follows: 18 % was acid washed, back-mixed with bottom ash and landlled in Swiss landlls 36 % was exported to German salt mines 46% was washed, solidied with additives, in some cases also including the water treatment sludge, and land lled in Swiss landlls A small amount was exported to France and disposed of in a heavy metals recovery and smelter plant The sludge quantity resulting from the euent cleaning of the wet ue gas treatment and wet y ash treatment systems totalled 9,460 tonnes in 2004. 32 % of this was disposed of without solidication, mainly in German salt mines 12 % was solidied with additives and landll in Swiss landlls 56 % was exported to smelter plants for zinc recycling Today Swiss W-t-E plants have the choice of either exporting untreated APC residues to German salt mines for backlling purposes or landll the treated and mainly also solidied APC residues in Swiss landlls. For new plants y ash washing and zinc recovery is considered to be state-of-the-art. Specic legislation APC residues are considered hazardous waste. A special landll class for residues is dened (Reststodeponie). Residues to be landlled have to fulll a special two-step leaching test (continuous acid test). Barriers and challenges The main barriers are costs for treatment and local landlling versus export costs. Utilization of residues or y ashes in any form is prohibited due to the risk of dilution and dissipation in the environment.

15

2.4.9

United Kingdom

Management practices In the UK APC residues are classied as hazardous waste at the point they are generated at EfW facilities. APC residues as generated in the UK may dier from other EU arisings, in that some boiler dusts are excluded from the APC residues as part of the process, in some cases eecting nal composition. APC residues arising in the UK currently constitute around 200,000 tonnes per annum, and this gure is predicted to continue rising. The most common treatment is to undertake physical chemical treatment with acidic wastes in order to partially stabilize the residue. The process changes both the chemical and physical nature of the APC residues. The product of the treatment is a solid non-hazardous or hazardous residue. The residue is currently sent to landll. Once treated, the residue is sent to either a non-hazardous or hazardous landll depending on the assessment of hazardousness normally linked to either composition or H14 ecotoxicity test. The total treatment and disposal cost (including tax) is around 60/tonne for non hazardous landll and 120/tonne for hazardous landll (2008). The treatment takes place either in mixing pits (see the rst bullet point below), facilitated by mechanical shovel mixing, pan mixers or more sophisticated silo and metered enclosed mixing units. There is one salt mine in Cheshire authorized to accept APC residues untreated for storage. There is no export of APC residues outside of the UK. The UK hazardous waste market is still evolving and the Environment Agency is working on the issue of interpreting and introducing legislation that adopts a European model into a market that has an infrastructure developed around 30 years of co-disposal. The key issues potentially impacting further on APC residues in the future being: UK Environment Agency stated policy is to ban open pit mixing (in 2008, due to issues relating to homogeneity of treated mixtures), and in the long term, seek the requirement of solidication and stabilization of inorganic hazardous wastes UK Environment Agency are considering the cessation of WAC (Waste Acceptance Criteria) derogation for Hazardous landll sites and this would, in the majority of cases, prevent the landll of APC treated residues as a Hazardous Waste unless they are stabilized UK Environment Agency is looking at whether hazardous wastes should remain hazardous even after treatment i.e. become partially treated hazardous wastes even if hazardous components are below the threshold for being hazardous The introduction of Pollution Prevention Control Permits is starting to make the operation of hazardous waste facilities far more stringent and onerous The most likely future treatment at some point will include the introduction of hydraulic binder (cement or other pozzolanic waste stream) solidication and stabilization. There are some proposals for washing processes for APC residues in order to produce re-saleable materials. There are also some developments in thermal

16

treatment, e.g. plasma torch, but it remains to be seen if, after many years, this technology can become commercially viable. Specic legislation The UK landll regulations adaptation of the applicable EU directives for Hazardous Waste call for the treatment of solid wastes from ue gas treatment as an hazardous waste associated to the EU Waste Catalogue number 19 01 07*. The EU Waste Catalogue number for the partially stabilized residue from physical chemical treatment with acidic wastes is 19 02 05 (hazardous) or 19 02 06 (non-hazardous). Barriers and challenges The main barrier is an economic one, e.g. cost of binders and the EA is unlikely to consider the stabilized APCR as non-hazardous (although eorts are being made to ascertain the hazardous or non-hazardous nature of monoliths from this process). There are a wide range of operators treating APC residues and the processes range from bespoke treatment with enclosed mixing systems to open pit mixing through to wetting APC residues with leachate prior to direct landll. The UK Environment Agency is trying to bring consistency to the way hazardous waste is treated and is expected to provide some guidance in order to facilitate the development and demonstration of processes.

17

18

Chapter 3

Treatment techniques
Treatment of APC residues should always be considered an integral part of any management, utilization and disposal option. Although, a specic technology or solution does not explicitly involve residue treatment, it is most likely that one or more of the processes included contain some level of modication of the physical and/or chemical properties of the residues. As such, understanding relevant residue treatment techniques are very important when discussing APC residue management. Within the last few decades, a large number of specic residue treatment techniques have been suggested. Although signicant variations exist, these treatment techniques may be grouped according to the main principle of operation: Extraction and separation. Processes involving extraction and removal of specic components in the residues. Chemical stabilization. Processes involving binding and immobilization of contaminants by chemical reactions. Solidication. Processes involving physical binding and encapsulation of residues, and in some cases also chemical stabilization. Thermal treatment. Processes involving heating of the residues, and changes of the physical and chemical characteristics. Only a small fraction of the suggested treatment techniques are currently in commercial use, often techniques have only been tested in lab- or pilot scale applications. Many of the techniques are comparable by their principle of operation, many treatment technologies also include several of the above processes. It should be noted that traditionally the main focus for research and development of treatment techniques have been to improve the environmental properties of the residues in case of landlling. This means that most processes aim to reduce leaching of metals and in some cases also salts. In spite of this, the processes used for utilization and recovery are generally similar. This chapter provides an overview of the most important processes and treatment techniques. The techniques are presented according to their main principle, although they may include several individual processes. For each of the processes, examples of relevant technologies are mentioned and it is stated whether the process/technique in question is in commercial use. It is thus the intention to provide an overview that forms a simple basis for evaluation of new treatment technologies not specically mentioned in this document.

19

For a number of the technologies, Appendix A provides further details to the extent available.

3.1

Extraction and separation

Extraction and separation processes include all processes whose main purpose is to remove or recover specic components or fractions from the residues. The main development focus has been placed on removing heavy metals and to some extent salts from the residues, mainly using water or acidic solutions. The processes are typically relatively simple, but are in some cases integrated with other processes such as chemical stabilization or solidication. A subgroup of extraction processes are related to thermal treatment as the actual extraction occurs integrated with the thermal treatment due to dierences in melting temperatures of metals. Thermal techniques are discussed separately in section 3.4. The main advantage of extraction and separation processes are the use of relatively simple techniques. The main disadvantage is the generation of metal and salt containing process water; this may, however, be utilized for further recovery. Water Mixing water and APC residues results in an extremely alkaline suspension with pH around 1113 and high concentrations of salts like Cl, Na, and sulphate, and heavy metals like Pb, Zn, Cr, and As. Using water, most of the salts can be extracted but only a small fraction of the heavy metals (typically less than 1 %). Although salt leaching can be signicantly reduced with water extraction processes, the leaching of metals are generally not reduced signicantly. Water extractionor washing of residuesis typically used in combination with other processes as washing alone is generally not considered to be sucient. Washing processes may, however, constitute a relatively signicant element in some treatment processes. Typical residence times are 0.51 hour at liquid-to-solid (L/S) ratios of about 25 l/kg; about 1030 % of the total mass can easily be removed with water extraction (Lundtorp, 2001). Technology status: The technique is used in several commercially available technologies, such as: Ferrox, DHI, cement solidication in Switzerland. Acid Extraction with acidic solutions are in many respects similar to water extraction, pH is however signicantly lower typically around 36. Like water, acidic solutions also extract salts, however most heavy metals are much more soluble at lower pH resulting in improved removal of these components as compared with water extractions. Typically, around 30-60 % of cationic heavy metals may be removed from the residues using acid (Arcangeli et al., 1996; Gong and Kirk, 1994; Hong et al., 2000). It should, however, be noticed that increased metal removal may not always be correlated with improved leaching as the mineralogy of the treated residues generally determines metal leaching rather than the actual metal contents. Acid extraction has been suggested in a range of treatment technologies, in many cases acid from the rst scrubber stage on plants with wet ue gas cleaning systems has been utilized. Acid extraction has been combined with other processes like thermal treatment and solidication.

20

Technology status: The technique is used in several commercially available technologies, for example FLUWA.

Microorganisms Biohydrometallurgy is a well established technique for metal recovery from solid materials such as low-grade ores. The techniquealso termed bioleachinghas been suggested for a range of waste materials, including APC residues (Krebs et al., 1997; Brombacher et al., 1997, 1998; Bosshard et al., 1996). Extraction by bioleaching makes use of microorganisms to 1) facilitate redox reactions, 2) to form acids, or 3) to form complexing agents. Indirectly, the technique involves water and/or acid extraction. Removal of large fractions (5090 %) of specic heavy metals has been reported in the lab, however this requires large quantities of water (L/S above 20 l/kg) and very low pH (around 0.55). These requirements make the technique less suited for APC residues on an industrial scale. Technology status: The technique is not commercially available, and has been tested in small scale only.

Electrodialysis Metals can be extracted by applying a current thereby facilitating a migration of ions in a residue suspension toward an anode or cathode. Ion exchange membranes can then be used to separate metal ions from the residue suspension (Pedersen et al., 2003; Ottosen et al., 2003). The technique requires metals to be in the aqueous phase; the release from the solid may be enhanced by use of complexing agents. In practice therefore, this technique rst involves aqueous extraction of metals from the solids; the electrodialysis process then serves as a separation process. Removal rates of around 2070 % for metals like Zn has been reported at L/S ratios of about 5 l/kg. Eective extraction requires good mixing. Technology status: The technique is not commercially available, and has been tested in small scale only.

Particle size fractionation Separation based on particle size fractionation has been suggested only in a single case (Crillesen, 2005). The technique is based on the settling velocities of residue particles in a water lled reactor: small particles are removed at the top of the reactor. The process has been suggested for separation of unreacted lime from dry and semi-dry residues. As the technique involves an aqueous suspension, water extraction processes are also included. Particle size fractionation should be used in combination with other treatment techniques as removal of the small particles will not render the remaining fraction suitable for nal disposal or utilization. Technology status: The technique is not commercially available, and has been tested in pilot scale only (in combination with the DHI treatment process, see section 3.2).

21

3.2

Chemical stabilization

Chemical stabilization processes include all processes whose main purpose is to bind and immobilize pollutants in the residue matrix. Development focus has primarily been placed on binding heavy metals by alterations to the residues geochemical properties. The processes are typically relatively simple subprocesses, such as water extraction, chemical reactions, and then de-watering. It should be noted that several other treatment processes also involve elements of chemical stabilization, for example in cement solidication techniques. The main advantage of chemical stabilization processes is a signicant improvement of the leaching properties of the residues and the use of relatively simple techniques. The main disadvantage is the generation of metal and salt containing process water. FeSO4 Addition of Fe-oxides to a residue suspension may signicantly increase the sorption capacity for heavy metals. The technique involves several steps: rst water extraction of easily soluble salts and mixing of FeSO4 , then oxidation of Fe for precipitation of Fe-oxides, adjustment of pH to about 1011, and nally de-watering of the product (Jensen et al. 2002, Lundtorp et al. 2002a, 2002b). The technique has been tested in pilot scale by means of the Ferrox treatment process, and has been thoroughly documented (Lundtorp, 2001). The treated product has also been suggested to be sintered with the bottom ashes by re-introducing the (treated) residues to the furnace (Baun et al., 2004; Bergfeldt et al., 2004), and to be solidied with cement (Cai et al., 2003, 2004). Technology status: The technique is commercially available. CO2 and H3 PO4 Stabilization with CO2 and H3 PO4 involves changes to the geochemical binding of heavy metals similar to stabilization with FeSO4 , however in this case the metals (primary focus on Pb, Cd, and Zn) are bound as relatively insoluble carbonates or phosphates. The technique includes a multi-step procedure similar to the Ferrox process. The technique has been tested in pilot scale by means of the DHI treatment process (Hjelmar et al., 1999, 2001). Similar processes, however only using CO2 for the stabilization, has been suggested and tested in the lab by several researchers (e.g. Ecke et al., 2002, 2003; Ecke, 2003). A Danish process (DHR treatment process), similar to the DHI process but without the use of phosphate, has been tested in pilot scale in Switzerland. Technology status: The technique is commercially available. Phosphate A variety of the above stabilization processes also utilize phosphate as the stabilizing agent and bind the heavy metals as phosphate minerals. Originating from USA, this process mixes reagents and residues more or less dry, often only with a little water to avoid dusting (Lyons, 2003; Eighmy et al., 1997; Iretskaya et al., 1999; Kim et al., 2003). As such, the process does not include water extraction of salts but on the other hand generates no process water.

22

Technology status: The technique is in commercial use (e.g. in USA, Japan and Taiwan). Sulphide Similar to phosphates and carbonates, sulphides can bind heavy metals in rather insoluble compounds. This technique is used on a regular basis for treatment of process and waste waters. One process utilizing this technique has been suggested based on the sulphide containing sludge from cleaning the scrubber solution on plants with wet ue gas cleaning systems (Reimann, 1990). This sludge contains unreacted sulphide compounds thatmixed with the residuescan improve the leaching properties of the nal product (Bamberg product). This also has the benet of reducing the number of products leaving the plant. Another process, the AES (Acid Extraction Sulphide) process, combines acid extraction with sulphide addition. Also stabilization with Na2 S has been suggested (Youcai et al., 2002). Technology status: The technique is in commercial use as the Bamberg method (rather extensively used in Europe).

3.3

Solidication

Solidication processes include all processes whose main purpose is to physically and hydraulicly encapsulate the residues. The primary development focus has been to minimize leaching of heavy metals after nal disposal. In the literature, solidication processes are often discussed as stabilization processes (S/S: solidication and stabilization). This illustrates that in many solidication processes, metals are also subjected to chemical stabilization and immobilization reactions with components in the hydraulic binder (e.g. binding of heavy metals in cement minerals). The main advantages of solidication techniques are a decrease of leaching and improvement of the mechanical properties. Solidication techniques often also make use of relatively simple technology. The main disadvantages are that the physical integrity of the product maydepending on the choice of binderdeteriorate over time and that mass and volume increases with the treatment. Water Residues have pozzolanic properties and may harden if mixed with water. Relatively large quantities of water may be incorporated due to the high content of for example Ca salts. The resulting geochemical changes are similar to those occurring in water extraction processes, except in this case residue components are not extracted. Technology status: The technique is primarily used as a subprocess in other multi-step procedures. As a stand-alone technique it has been investigated in lab scale only (Todorovic et al., 2003). Cement Cement solidication is probably the most widespread treatment technique for APC residues worldwide. Simplied the process involves mixing of residues, cement, water, and other additives. The additives may be other types of waste materials and/or specic components enhancing strength development; often companies use their own specic recipe for the mixing. These processes have been investigated extensively

23

within the recent decade (e.g. Polettini et al., 2001; Sabbas et al., 2003), in particular with respect to metal binding, strength development, and leaching properties. Cement solidication exists in numerous variations on a worldwide level and may be used in combination with other treatment processes, for example after acid extraction and chemical stabilization. Focus for the solidication can be either landlling or utilization of the nal product for construction purposes (e.g. backlling in mines). Technology status: The technique is in commercial use in many countries worldwide. Asphalt Residues may be used as a ller material substitute in asphalt production. This is done in The Netherlands where about 25 % of the ller used in asphalt is y ashes from waste incineration. The aspalt is then used in road construction. The technique has also been used in Japan, but with the purpose of landlling (IAWG, 1997). The involved processes are signicantly less investigated than in the case of cement; it is however likely that the longevity of the encapsulation is better than the case for cement. Technology status: The technique is in commercial use in The Netherlands. Gypsum The process is based on formation of a gypsum containing product by mixing of residues, water and acid. The residues are suspended in water, and then mixed with acid and lime at a pH of about 57. At this point gypsum precipitates. Finally, pH is increased to around 810 by addition of hydrated lime. Heavy metals are co-precipitated with gypsum. Technology status: The technique is in commercial use in Norway (NOAH, 2003). Others Residues are also solidied by mixing with other materials than those mentioned above, typical examples are other waste materials that are suited for a similar disposal and in combination with the residues form a material that can be used as ller material. The exact choice of waste materials added to the residues often vary from case to case depending on availability. This practice is used to produce cementlike solidied materials as mentioned above but also mixing with other materials such as wastewater sludge, soil, and waste glass is carried out, for example in the Netherlands and Belgium (Hydrostab).

3.4

Thermal treatment

Thermal treatment processes all involve a heating of the residues and thereby changing the physical and chemical properties, and in some cases also encapsulation. Overall, the main focus has been to produce a stable product with sucient leaching properties; however, also utilization solutions has been investigated. Thermal treatment may also serve as a basis for separation of metallic phases due to dierences in melting temperatures.

24

A main advantage is a very dense and stable product with good leaching properties. Another very important aspect is destruction of POPs such as dioxins. The main disadvantages are high energy demands for the process and generation of ue gas containing volatile metals. Three major types of thermal treatment exist: vitrication, melting, and sintering. Vitrication Vitrication processes involves melting of a mixture of residues and glass precursors (i.e. Si). This mixture is typically heated to around 13002000 C (Reimann, 1990) in order for an amorphous glassy material to form. In this process, residue components are bound in the glassy materials thereby also encapsulating the residues. The glass forming materials could be other types of mineral waste products, and the properties of the nal product are to some degree dependent of these additives. The products are often quenched directly after leaving the melting furnace; thus, vitried residues appear as a dark, granular and hard material. Technology status: The technique is commercially available. Vitrication is rather extensively used on a commercial basis in Japan (about 3040 vitrication and melting plants) and other Asian countries. Also a few plants in Europe and USA exists. Melting Melting processes are very similar to vitrication processes, however in this case no glass forming materials are added. The nal product consists of multiple metal phases (Nishigaki, 1996, 2000; Fujisawa et al., 1998; Traber et al., 1999; Sakai and Hiraoka, 2000; Katou et al., 2001; Washizu et al., 2002). Utilizing dierences in melting temperatures of individual metal phases, it is possible to separate these during the process. Temperatures are similar to vitrication. Melting is in some cases carried out on a mixture of waste materials; adding organic materials to the residues may thereby add energy to the process. It should be noted that both vitrication and melting processes may originally have been developed for waste materials other than APC residues, APC residues have been added at a later stage. Technology status: The technique is commercially available and is used to a similar extent as vitrication. Sintering Sintering processes involves heating to a level at which individual particles are bound together (Lee et al., 1999; Mangialardi, 2001; Ward et al., 2002). Sintering of APC residues has primarily been suggested in connection to bottom ashes, typically involving re-introduction of the residues to the incinerator furnace (i.e. the grate). Temperatures are around 9001300 C, and a denser and less porous material is produced. Sintering is less common than vitrication and melting, however a number of European companies market treatment technologies including routing APC residues back to the furnace for sintering with the bottom ashes. One example is the SYNCOM-PLUS process (Gohlke and Busch, 2001; Gohlke et al., 2003) although this process focuses on bottom ash treatment. Other technologies combine sintering with other processes such as acid extraction: 3R and MR (Stubenvoll, 1989; Vehlow

25

et al., 1990), and chemical stabilization: Ferrox (Bergfeldt et al., 2004; Baun et al., 2004). Technology status: The technique is commercially available. Pyrolysis Pyrolysis of organic waste materials (e.g. plastic) has been suggested combined with APC residue treatment. Residue components are then essentially heated (e.g. melted) and mixed with the other products from the pyrolysis process. As such, the characteristics of the nal products highly depend on the accompanying waste materials. Technology status: The technique is not commercially available, and has been investigated in lab scale only.

26

Chapter 4

Recovery and utilization


Residuesor specic residue constituentsshould always be utilized or recovered if technically possible and environmentally benecial. Based on the range of treatment techniques presented in Chapter 3, this is feasible to a certain extent. However, research and development activities have primarily focused on improving leaching properties of the residues rather than on techniques for recovery and utilization. Only within the recent decade, interest into these aspects has increased signicantly. Consequently, only a limited number of recovery and utilization solutions exist today. One of the reasons for the lack of commercially available recovery and utilization technologies is likely diculties related to achieving satisfactorily technical qualities of products based on APC residues and readily available virgin materials. Recovery and utilization solutions are generally derived from and associated with the treatment technologies. In many cases, the actual treatment processes are integrated with the utilization solution.

4.1

Recovery

Specic components present in the residues may be recovered and used again, for example in other industrial processes. The primary interest is centered around metals and salts. Recovery is characterized by production of a material which may substitute a similar virgin material and be used in a similar manner. Salts Evaporation of water from treated waste water from wet scrubbers can produce a very concentrated salt solution, or recrystallized salt. This may be performed by plants with no permission for discharge of waste water. Salt recovery directly from the residues is also possible after water extraction of salts (i.e. washing of the residues). This has been considered in conjunction with several treatment technologies generating salt containing process water. Technology status: The technique is in commercial use. Acid The solution from a rst scrubber stage in a multi stage setup is essentially concentrated hydrochloric acid. Depending on use and management of this solution, HCl may be further concentrated and utilized, e.g. for residue treatment. Technology status: The technique is in commercial use.

27

Gypsum Production of gypsum may be achieved based on scrubber solution from an alkaline scrubber, typically a second stage in a multi stage scrubbing system. Sulphite ions are oxidized to sulphate; gypsum can then be precipitated by addition of Ca carbonates and pH adjustment with NaOH. The suspension is then dewatered. Depending on the metal content in the scrubber solution, heavy metal removal may be necessary before precipitation of gypsum. Technology status: The technique is in commercial use. Metals From a technical point of view, residues represents low-grade ores that may be subjected to metal recovery using traditional upgrading methods. This has, however, only been attempted in a limited number of cases. Overall, metals are primarily recovered based on two approaches: Extraction techniques: mainly acid extraction Thermal techniques: melting Acid extraction is a well known method for dissolution of solid materials, and provided pH is suciently low most metals will dissolve into solution. The recovery rate is limited by the dissolution level, and the quality of the recovered metals by the solution composition. The recovered metal product may need further upgrading before a suitable quality is achieved. Appropriate control of residue melting processes may facilitate recovery of specic metal phases, depending on process temperatures. Technology status: The technique is in commercial use.

4.2

Utilization

APC residues have properties to some extent comparable with cement (e.g. pozzolanic behavior and contents of Ca, S, Al, Si), and may be utilized as ller material or aggregates. However due to the high contents of easily dissolvable salts and a potential for hydrogen generation, APC residues cannot directly substitute cement. Utilization is characterized by substitution of materials in products or applications to which the residues can contribute with useful properties. Utilization of APC residues for the applications mentioned in the following should always be associated with a detailed description of the residue amounts used, the placement, and the fate of the residues in case of demolition of the involved structures. Registration by the responsible authorities should be a prerequisite for utilization. Cement based applications APC residues have been suggested to substitute cement in concrete for construction purposes, for example construction elements for buildings, shore protection blocks, and articial reefs. While solidication of residues by addition of cement is relatively simple, substitution of cement by APC residues in concrete can be rather dicult. Even 1020 % substitution signicantly aects strength development and settling

28

times (Geiker et al., 2006). The presence of metallic Al in y ashes can under moist conditions result in hydrogen generation (Astrup et al., 2005); this may lead to cracks and disintegration of concrete with APC residues (Geiker et al., 2006). Considering the technical limitations related to producing concrete products with APC residues and the availability of cement, residue utilization as general construction materials is not particularly widespread. APC residues are, however, used as material for backlling of mines to avoid collapse. This is done on a large scale in German salt mines (see section 3.3). The properties of the residues used for utilization may be improved by washing, either with water or acid. Although not with a focus on utilization, this has been practiced in Europe with subsequent addition of cement in order to cast blocks for landlling. Technology status: The technique is in commercial use. Filler materials Investigations of coal y ash utilization, and similar materials such as APC residues, as ller material has been carried out for many years, examples are embankments, highway ramps, noise barriers, harbour facilities, etc. Compared with coal y ashes, APC residues are much less suited for those purposes due to the high contents of easily soluble salts resulting in potential problems with settling. However, due to the pozzolanic properties of the residues, uptake of water can induce hardening and result in a rather hard material over time. Utilization of APC residues as ller material for construction works are generally not accepted today due to the environmental aspects, but may have been practiced earlier. Technology status: The technique is not commercially available. Asphalt Utilization of APC residues in bituminous structures has been investigated in a number of cases, primarily with a focus to stabilize the residues and minimize leaching (Ali et al., 1996; Sawada et al., 2001). Fly ash can, however, be utilized as a substitute for ller material in asphalt production. Fly ash is used for this purpose in The Netherlands for road construction on a regular basis: y ash is ground, homogenized and mixed with other materials to produce a combined ller material with a maximum of about 25 % y ash. Utilization of residues in asphalt production in The Netherlands is accepted on the premise that used asphalt is recycled and the residues therefore are part of a closed loop. Technology status: The technique is in commercial use. Neutralization capacity The very alkaline nature of APC residues may serve as neutralization capacity of acidic waste materials. This is utilized in Norway (NOAH, 2003) on acid waste from the titanium industry. After neutralization, the remaining solid products are landlled. Utilization of APC residues for neutralization purposes is also carried out in the United Kingdom (Veolia, 2007). Technology status: The technique is in commercial use.

29

30

Chapter 5

Final disposal options


Residues should always be treated to minimize leaching and/or utilized in the best possible manner (see Chapters 4 and 3). However even after the most sophisticated treatment process, a risk for leaching and thereby future release of contaminants from the processed residues remains. To minimize such a risk, the treated residuesor residuals from residue treatment processesshould be safely landlled. Landlling of the residues can be carried out using one of two solutions: disposal at a surface level landll, or disposal at a subsurface landll. Depending on the landll, nal disposal may in some respects be similar to utilization as ller material in construction works: the landll site is well known and documented, the placement of the residues registered, and the potential environmental impacts similar. Residues should be treated before nal disposal in order to reduce future leaching and comply with the relevant acceptance criteria.

5.1

Subsurface disposal

Disposal of residues in subsurface landlls or disposal sites is typically done in old mines. This technique is used as a utilization option primarily in Germany but also in the United Kingdom. Disposal in mines may be done after wet mixing with other waste materials, and perhaps cement, and then transport to the nal destination in the mine by pumping of the slurry. Disposal in mines may also be done directly by placement of the residues, for example in big bags, in the mines. Salt mines are considered a viable disposal option as natural salt deposits are characterized by practical no hydraulic contact with the surrounding groundwater bodies. Consequently any leaching, or other contaminant release, from the residues is considered eectively hindered over geological time scales, i.e. millions of years. The salt content of APC residues isin contrast to other optionsnot a concern here because of the salty environment. Salt mines are generally regarded as safe disposal sites in Europe. Technology status: The technique is in commercial use.

5.2

Surface disposal

Final disposal of residues at traditional surface level landlls have been practiced in many countries for decades, and is still the most common option. At earlier times, the residues have been placed in landlls without any treatment, however increasing focus on leaching properties has provided incentives for improvement

31

of leaching properties before landlling. Most of the research and development activities focusing on residue treatment has been directed at decreasing leaching after landlling. Worldwide most of the APC residues generated are landlled in one way or the other, most of these at surface level landlls. It is unclear how large a fraction of the residues are treated before nal disposal; however this is generally considered to be the case in Europe, USA, and Japan. Residues may be landlled in granular form, for example after chemical stabilization or thermal treatment, or in big bags. As mentioned previously, the residues will harden upon contact with inltrating water. Surface level landlling of residues should follow modern landlling practices: i.e. construction of bottom liners, top covers, as well as leaching collection and treatment. Reaching nal storage quality requires specic treatment of the residues prior to landlling, e.g. by chemical stabilization. Residues may also be landlled in monolithic form i.e. after solidication, typically with cement. For example, blocks of one by one meter are then cast and landlled. This practice has been used in several cases, for example in Switzerland (Baur et al., 2001). Technology status: The technique is in commercial use.

32

Chapter 6

Commercial Technologies
While the previous Chapters 35 discussed available treatment, recovery and disposal techniques, this chapter focuses on commercially available technologies, i.e. residue management technologies that are currently on the market. These commercial technologies make use of a range of the specic techniques and processes further described in Chapter 3: Extraction and separation Chemical stabilization Solidication Thermal treatment Table 6.1 outlines a range of major technologies available commercially and used on a larger scale. It should be realized that this list of technologies is not complete, however examples of all major technology types currently in use around the world are included here. A brief description of these technologies is provided below (for further details please refer to Chapters 35 and Appendix A): AshRock: Residues are mixed with various reagents and additives to produce a solid material. The material is then landlled. It has not been possible to nd detailed data on this process; it is, however, included in Table 6.1 for the sake of completeness. Asphalt: Residues are grinded, homogenized and mixed with additives to produce a ller material to be used in asphalt production. The ller content in the nal asphalt is about 5 % per weight. Backlling material for mines (Bulk Material Blending): Residues are mixed with various waste materials (solids and liquids) to produce a material suitable for backlling of mines. The overall principle is to physically and chemically bind the contaminants in a solid matrix thereby minimizing water contact. The solidied material is typically placed in old salt mines and utilized as backlling material. Mines in for example Germany, France, and UK accept APC residues. DRH: Residues are mixed with water to extract easily soluble salts, then heavy metals are precipitated by ushing with CO2 , for example using ue gas. The

33

Table 6.1: Overview of major commercial residue management technologies. If the technology is further described in appendix this is noted. Technology Company Country AshRock/Solicendres SARP Industries France Asphalt The Netherlands Backlling material (bulk) Liebherr/GTS GmbH & Co. KG Germany DRH Dansk Restprodukth andtering Denmark Ferrox Bacbcock & Wilcox Vlund Denmark FLUWA Von Roll Switzerland INERTEC Stabilization INERTEC France Langya NOAH Norway NEUTREC SOLVAY France Melting: Furnace Takuma Japan Melting: Electric Arc Daido Steel Japan Melting: Electric Resistance JFE Engineering Japan T.I.L. LAB France WesPhix Wheelabrator Technologies Inc. USA residues are dewatered and landlled. Heavy metals in the process water are removed and returned to the residues. Ferrox: Residues are washed with water to extract easily soluble salts, then heavy metals are xed with Fe-oxides. The residues are nally dewatered and landlled. The process chemically binds heavy metals to the residue matrix thereby minimizing leaching after nal placement. FLUWA: Residues are washed with acidic scrubber solution from wet ue gas cleaning systems to extract soluble heavy metals. The residues are dewatered and landlled after mixing with bottom ashes or solidication with additives. Extracted metals (zinc) are recycled. INERTEC: Residues are mixed with water and reagents to chemically bind heavy metals and produce a solid matrix suitable for landlling. Langya: Residues are utilized to neutralize waste acid, then mixed with lime to produce a gypsum-like material that is landlled. The solidied residues are utilized to ll an old lime quarry. NEUTREC: Reacted neutralization products from the gas cleaning process (reacted sodium bicarbonate) are washed with water and dewatered. The process water is cleaned by activated coal and ion exchange systems to produce a brine, which can be recycled in the sodium carbonate production. The dewatered residues are landlled. Melting: Residues are heated by electricity or fuel to produce a mixture of melted phases. Metals or metal phases may be recovered. The melted residues are typically quenched and landlled or utilized for construction purposes. Depending on the additives and temperatures used in the processes, the residues can be vitried as well.

Appendix

34

T.I.L.: Residues are washed with acidic scrubber solution from wet ue gas cleaning systems in order to extract heavy metals. The residues are then dewatered and landlled. WesPhix: Residues are mixed with soluble phosphate to chemically bind heavy metals. Typically, the stabilized residues are then landlled.

35

36

Chapter 7

Solutions and evaluation


Management and disposal of APC residues from municipal solid waste incinerators is not a trivial task and requires critical consideration of solutions prior to employment, in particular of the environmental aspects. It is important to realize that although a specic residue management option may appear promising, the entire chain of processes and activities related to the solution should be carefully considered, including indirect and avoided activities. Specic management solutions have specic benets and drawbacks, and specic regions and countries have specic requirements. Consequently, it is not possible to pinpoint a single residue management solution that fullls all requirements throughout the world. As such only general recommendations can be given in this document. This chapter focuses on aspects relevant for evaluating residue management solutions, new or existing, and provides recommendations for assessment approaches.

7.1

Potentially available solutions

The residue management solutions and techniques discussed in the previous Chapters 36, can be categorized as follows: Experimental: Processes or techniques tested only in small scale. The techniques may be in use on ashes from other combustion processes, such as coal red power plants. Promising: Processes or techniques specically tested on APC residues and systematically documented. These techniques may or may not be in commercial use, however they are often tested at a minimum in bench or pilot scale. Commercial: Technologies involving one or several individual processes or techniques. These techniques may or may not be tested and documented. Although specic residue management solutions are commercially available and in widespread use, the involved techniques may not necessarily be publicly identied and documented nor may the relevant technical requirements and environmental aspects be apparent for users. On the other hand, treatment processes may be investigated in detail in the lab by researchers but unlikely to be picked up by investors due to economical aspects. Currently, most of the treatment techniques mentioned in the literature falls in the Experimental or Promising category. It should be realized that each type of

37

treatment (i.e. extraction and separation, chemical stabilization, solidication, and thermal treatment) is today represented by a substantial range of specic technologies, some of which are commercially available. As such, most Commercial solutions make use of processes similar in type to some of the Experimental or Promising techniques. For operators and authorities to navigate in this eld and choose between dierent management solutions, a localized evaluation of the solution is necessary as well as a technical description of the involved processes.

7.2

Development and documentation level

Researchers as well as entrepreneurs suggest new residue treatment technologies on a regular basis, most of thesealthough appearing promisingmay never be developed further than lab scale or may never be appropriately documented. A thorough evaluation and assessment of a technology requires detailed documentation of the processes involved. Although detailed technical data on individual commercial technologies may not be publicly available, information about similar techniques and processes can often be found in research literature. However as researchers typically focus on leaching behaviour and mechanical properties of the residues, an exhaustive description of a process may not be available: e.g. energy consumption and air emissions from thermal treatment processes are often not measured. Table 7.1 provides a qualitative assessment of the development status of the techniques discussed in Chapters 35 as well as an assessment of the availability of descriptions and data related to technical aspects, leaching, and emissions in general. It should be noted that the table lists individual processes that may not necessarily be compared directly. It should also be realized that the table does not cover actual commercial solutions (i.e. backlling of salt mines), but rather focuses on the individual processes. Commercial treatment and management solutions often consist of several steps combining a technical process and a disposal or utilization step. Some examples are: Stabilization with FeSO4 and surface disposal Solidication with asphalt and controlled utilization in construction works Solidication with cement and utilization as backlling materials in salt mines This approach for Table 7.1 has been chosen because of a general lack of sucient data and information about commercial solutions, and because the table provides more exibility for the reader to create their own understanding of a specic solution by combining information for the relevant processes mentioned in the table.

7.3
7.3.1

Technology evaluation
Aspects to consider

Processes and technologies for residue treatment and management should ideally be evaluated at least with respect to the following aspects: Technical

38

Table 7.1: Qualitative assessment of development level with respect to full scale commercial use of the individual techniques, as well as general availability of documentation and data describing the techniques. 15 stars are given, ve stars indicates high development level and public availability of detailed documentation. Development level Availability of data related to: Technical processes Leaching Other emissions

Process

Extraction and separation: Water Acid Microorganisms Electrodialysis Particle size

39

Chemical stabilization: FeSO4 CO2 / H3 PO4 Phosphate Sulphide

Solidication: Water Cement Asphalt Gypsum

Thermal treatment: Vitrication Melting Sintering Pyrolysis

Only individual processes are covered in this table, i.e. the building blocks of commercial solutions. Readers are encouraged to build their own assessment on relevant management solutions by combining the information in the table.

Environmental Economical The priority of the above aspects can always be discussed, and may vary in individual cases depending on the management option in question (e.g. level of documentation and development, political framework and regulations, existing management solutions, local conditions and requirements, etc). Fullling the technical requirements can be regarded as a pre-requisite as it makes little sense to proceed with a technique if technical aspects make it unpractical to use on APC residues. The same, however, can be argued for environmental and economical aspects as well. The techniques discussed in this document can all be applied to APC residues, the techniques may, however, not all be environmentally and economically viable. The remainder of this chapter focuses on the environmental aspects of residue management and the economical aspects are not discussed further. An evaluation of the environmental aspects should include all relevant environmental consequences and potential impacts of the process chain. This means that also indirect consequences (e.g. on other material ows) and avoided activities (e.g. previous landlling of waste materials now co-treated with the residues) should be considered. Such an assessment can be done using several approaches, it is however important to do this systematically. A commonly applied approach is life-cycle assessments (LCA).

7.3.2

Life-cycle assessments (LCA)

In a simplied form LCA is an account of all resource and material consumptions as well as all emissions related to a given service, including all relevant upstream and downstream processes. In this case the service could be: management of one tonne of APC residues. An LCA may then include all activities and processes from the point where the residues leave the incinerator until the residues (and all derived products) are nally disposed. As such, an LCA should include consumptions and emissions related to the activities today but also include future activities and processes, such as demolition and nal disposal of construction works, leachate control activities, and future emissions from landlled residues or bi-products from the processes. It should be realized that performing an LCA can be a relatively complicated task, the most critical activity is however to provide the necessary documentation of the solution in question. In a European context, use of life-cycle thinking has been introduced by the EU Commission (see Chapter 2). Although vaguely dened, it is anticipated that LCA will become important in the future as an argument for selecting specic residue management solutions throughout the EU and for companies in marketing their specic solutions. Systematic evaluations of environmental aspects of APC residue management, such as life-cycle assessments, are very limited although a few examples exist in Denmark and the Netherlands (e.g. Fruergaard and Astrup, 2007; Afval Overleg Orgaan, 2002). It should be realized that although life-cycle aspects are included in an environmental assessment, such an assessment may not necessarily be characterized as a full LCA (for further details see Wenzel et al. 1997; ISO 14040, 1997). A few issues should be realized with respect to LCA:

40

LCA is an analytical tool used for decision support, it is not a decision making tool The result of an LCA is highly dependent on system boundaries, assumptions, assessment criteria, time horizons, data quality, etc Several methodologies exist for performing LCA It is not the intention to provide a detailed description of LCA methodology in this report, however a Danish example of an LCA-screening is given in Appendix B where the main aspects related to LCA on APC residue management are introduced. Readers are strongly encouraged to seek further information about LCA. Please note that LCA on waste management in general (e.g. municipal solid waste, including waste incineration) is relatively well investigated and several scientic papers exist on this topic (e.g. Christensen et al., 2007). Life-cycle assessments includes a number of steps as outlined in Textbox 1. In practice an LCA is centered around dening a set of scenarios which are comparable with respect to the service provided (e.g. management of one tonne of APC residue). Then all relevant emissions, consumptions and productions, etc. are accounted for in each scenario and the potential environmental impacts (e.g. global warming) calculated for each emission, etc. The resulting LCA is then typically presented in the form of graphs showing environmental impacts in a number of different impact categories (such as global warming, etc. See Textbox 1). Potential benets from a specic scenario can then be realized by comparing these impacts with other scenarios. As mentioned above, only a few life-cycle assessments have been carried out focusing on APC residue management. However, some countries, e.g. Denmark, have accepted this approach as a basis for decisions regarding waste management including APC residues. It is anticipated that the use of environmental assessments using a life-cycle perspective will grow in the future. It is, however, important to realize that although LCAs are carried out following identical methodologies in two countries, the results may vary according to local conditions. Therefore, it may not be possible to provide a generic LCA with conclusions about how to manage APC residues for example throughout Europe. Dierences in energy production, existing APC management, emissions, etc. between countries may result in dierent conclusions. However, using LCA methodology provides a systematic and comparable approach to the evaluation.

7.4

Final remarks

Ideally, the management solution with the least environmental impact should be chosen. As discussed in the previous sections, individual technologies have dierent environmental proles and choices between management solutions should be argued with respect to local conditions. A number of aspects should however be discussed in all cases: Treatment. Residues should always undergo some level of treatment to minimize future release, for example by leaching. The treatment should naturally reect the choice of nal disposal.

41

Textbox 1: Outline of important steps in life-cycle assessment (LCA) and the type of results gained. The following environmental impacts are often assessed in LCAs (and termed impact categories). They represent a range of environmental aspects generally considered to be important, although choices of impact categories varies between LCAs: Global Warming Acidication Nutrient Enrichment Photochemical Ozone Formation Stratospheric Ozone Depletion Ecotoxicity (in Water and Soil) Human Toxicity (via Air, Water and Soil) LCA includes the following main steps (for further details see Wenzel et al., 1997; ISO 14040, 1997): Goal and scope denition. Denition of the functional unit, system boundaries, assessment criteria, methods for accounting indirect and avoided processes and activities. Inventory analysis. Data collection and preparation of an inventory of inputs and outputs for the involved processes. Assessment of data quality. Impact assessment. Four sub-steps: selection of impact categories to assess (e.g. global warming, acidication, etc.), characterization (e.g. quantication of an emissions contribution to a specic impact category), normalization (e.g. normalization of the results to a common unit such as average impacts related to one person, a person equivalent), and nally weighting (e.g. weighting of the results according to assessment goals, society or political interests, etc.). Interpretation. Interpretation of results, including sensitivity analysis for example with respect to system boundaries, assumptions, data, etc.

42

Transportation. The transportation of residues from incinerators to the treatment or disposal facility may account for a signicant part of the environmental load, in particular in cases with simple or less energy intensive treatment. Energy. Consumption of energy during treatment and related to disposal activities may account for very signicant parts of the overall environmental load, in particular in case of thermal treatment. Environmental benets from the treatment should be critically evaluated against the environmental load from energy consumption, in particular. Leaching. Metal leaching from residues after nal disposal may continue for thousands of years. Although the actual consequences cannot be determined today, the potential impacts from this long-term release should be assessed and accounted for. Contaminant dispersion. Spreading of contaminants, for example heavy metals, via construction materials should be avoided. In case of utilization for construction purposes, the materials should be used in major projects controlled by the authorities and the fate of the materials after demolition should be determined beforehand. Life-cycle assessments (LCA) of APC residue management solutions are found useful as a decision support tool, however these assessments cannot serve as the only basis for a decision. Collecting and evaluating technology data is extremely time-consuming, and the nal results can be highly aected by system boundaries and assumptions. In spite of these limitations, LCA is a useful tool for systematic comparison of management alternatives and is likely to become increasingly used in the future. Table 7.2 provides a qualitative overview of major environmental benets and drawbacks related to the various types of treatment processes discussed in this report. The table does not provide specic and quantitative information about how much is leached from treated residues, but rather provides a relative overview. It should be realized that the individual processes act dierently on the residues and that the stabilization quality may not be comparable (e.g. washing with water will produce residues with higher leaching than vitried residues). The table also illustrates the potential for recovering residue components such as metals and salts based on the individual processes. It should be noted that complete commercial solutions have not been evaluated in Table 7.2, only the individual technical processes similarly to the approach used in Table 7.1. The potential for utilizing the treated residues for construction purposes has not been evaluated. It may be realized from Table 7.2 that a number of treatment processes exist providing low leaching potentials and thereby good stabilization of the residues. If these techniques are combined with appropriate disposal technologies, the combined solution may eectively represent a sink of substances in the APC residues.

43

Table 7.2: Qualitative assessment of major environmental benets and drawbacks for individual processes. The number of closed circles (05) reects the level of energy requirements needed to treat the residues, the need for treatment of process water and ue gas cleaning, and the pollution potential of leachate from the treated residues: 0 indicates a low level of energy use, pollution potential, etc. Open circles (05) reects the potential for recovery of components like metals and salts from the residues: 5 indicates a high potential for recovery. Process Extraction and separation: Water Acid Microorganisms Electrodialysis Particle size Energy Process water Air emissions Chemical stabilization: FeSO4 CO2 / H3 PO4 Phosphate Sulphide Solidication: Water Cement Asphalt Gypsum Thermal treatment: Vitrication Melting Sintering Pyrolysis Leaching

Recovery potential

Individual commercial technologies (e.g. backlling of salt mines) are not specically addressed as limited information are typically available about these technologies. Only individual processes are covered in this table, i.e. the building blocks of the commercial technologies. Readers are encouraged to build their own assessment on relevant management solutions by combining the information in the table. The assessment is directly related to the process, i.e. excluding indirect, secondary, and avoided processes. It should be realized that the stabilization quality is not the same for all processes, and that other aspects than those mentioned above should be considered as well.

44

Chapter 8

Recommendations
Today a long range of APC residue management solutions exists worldwide. Some of these management solutions are commercially available, while others have only been tested in the laboratory. Common for most of the involved techniques and processes are, however, that the documentation is very limited and not sucient to support choices between these techniques with respect to environmental criteria. It is recommended that individual residue management solutions are evaluated systematically with respect to potential environmental impacts: this should be done using a life-cycle approach and accounting for local conditions. This report presents data on individual residue treatment technologies, processes, etc. to the extent it has been possible to collect these. Technology owners are, however, strongly encouraged to provide the necessary data: this enables incinerators, authorities, and other stakeholders to evaluate specic residue management solutions with respect to environmental criteria and thereby provide environmentally based arguments for choosing one solution from the other. From incinerators and authorities point of view, the availability of technical data may therefore be seen as a market advantage in the future. The outline below provides an overview of the information and data needed to carry out a life-cycle assessment of residue management. Appendix A provides a suggestion for a relevant data table format. Technical description of involved processes Consumption of (per ton of residue): chemicals and materials water (water quality specied: e.g. surface or groundwater) energy (type specied: e.g. diesel, electricity, gas, etc.) Outputs of (per ton of residue): by-products (composition specied) treated residues (composition specied) Emissions (per ton of residue): waste water (composition specied) air emissions (composition specied) leaching from solid products (composition specied) Technical description of fate of solid products (e.g. landlling, construction, etc.)

45

46

Chapter 9

Literature
Afval Overleg Orgaan (2002): Milieueectrapport Landelijk Afvalbeheerplan. Achtergronddocument A25, Uitwerking AVI-vliegas. Afval Overleg Orgaan, The Netherlands. Ali N, Chan JS, Simms S, Bushman R, Bergan AT (1996): Mechanistic evaluation of y ash asphalt concrete mixtures. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 8(1), 1925. Arcangeli L, Cipriani P, Galeotti L, Gavasci R, Sirini P (1996): Detoxication of y ashes from RDF incineration plant. Journal of Solid Waste Technology & Management, 23 (4), 213218. Astrup T, Rosenblad C, Trapp S, Christensen TH (2005): Chromium release from waste incineration air-pollution-control residues. Environmental Science & Technology, 39, 3321-3329. Baun,D.L., Christensen,T.H., Bergfeldt,B., Vehlow,J., Mogensen,E.P.B. (2004): Thermal treatment of stabilized air pollution control residues in a waste incinerator pilot plant. Part 2: leaching characteristics of bottom ashes. Waste Management and Research, 22, 5868. Baur S, Ludwig C, Johnson CA (2001): The leaching behavior of cement stabilized air pollution control residues: A comparison of eld and laboratory investigations. Environmental Science and Technology, 35, 28172822. Bergfeldt B, Jay K, Seifert H, Vehlow J, Christensen TH, Baun DL, Mogensen EPB (2004): Thermal treatment of stabilized air pollution control residues in a waste incinerator pilot plant. Part 1: fate of elements and dioxins. Waste Management and Research, 22, 4957. Bosshard PP, Bachofen R, Brandl H (1996): Metal leaching of y ash from municipal waste incineration by Aspergillus niger. Environmental Science and Technology, 30, 30663070. Brombacher C, Bachofen R, Brandl H (1997): Biohydrometallurgical processing of solids: a patent review. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 48 (5), 577587.

47

Brombacher C, Bachofen R, Brandl H (1998): Development of a laboratory-scale leaching plant for metal extraction from y ash by Thiobacillus strains. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 64 (4), 12371241. Cai Z, Bager DH, Jensen DL, Christensen TH (2003): Re-use of stabilized ue gas ashes from solid waste incineration in cement-treated base layers for pavements. Waste Management and Research, 21, 4253. Cai Z, Bager DH, Mosbk H, Christensen TH (2004): Leaching from solid waste incineration ashes used in cement-treated base layers for pavements. Waste Management, 24, 603612. Christensen TH, Bhander GS, Lindvall HK, Larsen AW, Fruergaard T, Damgaard A, Manfredi S, Boldrin A, Riber C, Hauschild MZ (2007): Experience with the use of LCA-modelling (EASEWASTE) in waste management.Waste Management and Research, 25, 257-262. Crillesen K (2005): Information about the Askepot project, personal communication, I/S Vestforbrnding, Denmark. EC (2006): Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control: Reference Document on the Best Available Techniques for Waste Incineration, August 2006, European Commission. Ecke H (2003): Sequestration of metals in carbonated municipal solid waste incineration (MSWI) y ash. Waste Management, 23, 631640. Ecke H, Menad N, Lagerkvist A (2002): Treatment-oriented characterization of dry scrubber residue from municipal solid waste incineration. Journal of Materials Cycles and Waste Management, 4, 117126. Ecke H, Menad N, Lagerkvist A (2003): Carbonation of municipal solid waste incineration y ash and the impact on metal mobility. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 435440. Eighmy TT, Crannell BS, Butler LG, Cartledge FK, Emery EF, Oblas D, Krzanowski JE, Eusden JD, Shaw EL, Francis CA (1997): Heavy metal stabilization in municipal solid waste combustion dry scrubber residue using soluble phosphate. Environmental Science and Technology, 31, 33303338. Fruergaard T, Astrup T (2007): Life cycle assessment of management of APC residues from waste incineration. Proceedings Sardinia 2007, Eleventh International Waste Management and Landll Symposium, Italy, 15 October 2007. Fujisawa Y, Nakahara K, Nakao T, Teratsuji K, Akashi T, Hiraoka H (1998): NKK electric-resistance furnace for residues from municipal solid waste incineration plants. NKK Technical Review, 78, 3138. Geiker M, Kjeldsen AM, Galluci E, Bager DH (2006): Preliminary investigation of the eect of air-pollution-control residue from waste incineration on the properties of cement paste and mortar. Proceedings Advances In Cement and Concrete X, Sustainability, Davos, Switzerland, July, 2006.

48

Gohlke O, Busch M (2001): Reduction of combustion by-products in WTE plants: O2 enrichment of underre air in the Martin Syncom process. Chemosphere, 42, 545550. Gohlke O, Busch M, Horn J, Takuma M, Kuranishi M, Yanagisawa Y (2003): New grate-based waste-to-energy system. Waste Management World, May 1. Gong Y, Kirk DW (1994): Behaviour of municipal solid waste incinerator y ash. I: General leaching study. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 36, 249264. Hjelmar O, Birch H, Hansen JB (1999): Development of a process for treatment of air pollution control residues from MSW incinerators prior to landlling. Christensen TH, Cossu R, Stegmann R (Eds), Seventh International Waste Management and Landll Symposium, 543548. Sardinia, CISA, Italy. Hjelmar O, Birch H, Hansen JB (2001): Treatment of APC residues from MSW incineration: Development and optimisation of a treatment process in pilot scale. Christensen TH, Cossu R, Stegmann R (Eds), Eighth International Waste Management and Landll Symposium, 667675. Sardinia, CISA, Italy. Hong KJ, Tokunaga S, Ishigami Y, Kajiuchi T (2000): Extraction of heavy metals from MSW incinerator y ash using saponins. Chemosphere, 41, 345352. IAWG: Chandler AJ, Eighmy TT, Hartln J, Hjelmar O, Kosson DS, Sawell SE, e van der Sloot HA, Vehlow J. Municipal solid waste incinerator residues. 1997. Studies in Environmental Science 67. Amsterdam, Elsevier. Iretskaya S, Nzihou A, Zahraoui C, Sharrock P (1999): Metal leaching from MSW y ash before and after chemical and thermal treatments. Environmental Progress, 18 (2), 144148. ISO 14040 (1997): Environmental management - Life-cycle assessment - Principles and framework, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland. ISWA: Astrup T, Bader C, Bnhidy J, Birch H, Crillesen K, Marklund S, Reimann a DO, rnebjerg H (2003): Management of APC residues from WTE plants - An overview of important management options. ISWA-WG Thermal Treatment of Waste, ISWA, Copenhagen. Jensen DL, Christensen TH, Lundtorp K (2002): Treatment of waste incinerator air-pollution-control residues with FeSO4: Laboratory investigation of design parameters. Waste Management and Research, 20, 8089. Katou K, Asou T, Kurauchi Y, Sameshima R (2001): Melting municipal solid waste incineration residue by plasma melting furnace with a graphite electrode. Thin Solid Films, 286, 183188. Kim S, Matsuto T, Tanaka N (2003): Evaluation of pre-treatment methods for landll disposal of residues from municipal solid waste incineration. Waste Management & Research, 21, 416423. Kokado M (1999): A study on metal recovery from municipal solid waste residue as urban metal mine. Metallurgical Review of MMIJ, 16 (1), 105119.

49

Krebs W, Brombacher C, Bosshard PP, Bachofen R, Brandl H (1997): Microbial recovery of metals from solids. Fems Microbiology Reviews, 20 (34), 605617. Lee PH, Nasserzadeh V, Swithenbank J, Laming JV, Goodfellow J, McLeod C, Argent BB, Lawrence D, Garrod N (1999): Sintering of the APC residue from municipal waste incinerators. Trans IChem E, 77 (B), 212218. Lundtorp K (2001): The Ferrox-process in an industrial scale - Developing a stabilisation process for air pollution control residues from municipal solid waste incineration. PhD Thesis. Technical University of Denmark, Environment & Resources DTU. Lundtorp K, Jensen DL, Christensen TH (2002a): Stabilization of APC residues from waste incineration with ferrous sulfate on a semi-industrial scale. Journal of Air and Waste Management Association, 52, 722731. Lundtorp K, Jensen DL, Srensen MA, Christensen TH, Mogensen EPB (2002b): Treatment of waste incinerator air-pollution-control residues with FeSO4: Concept and product characterization. Waste Management and Research, 20, 69 79. Lyons M (2003): Information on the WesPhix process, personal communication of material from Wheelabrator Inc. Mangialardi T (2001): Sintering of MSW y ash for reuse as a concrete aggregate. Journal of Hazardous Materials, B87, 225239. Nishigaki M (1996): Reecting surface-melt furnace and utilization of the slag. Waste Management, 16 (5/6), 445452. Nishigaki M (2000): Producing permeable blocks and pavement bricks from molten slag. Waste Management, 20, 185192. Noah (2003): Information om Langya, rmamateriale. Ottosen LM, Kristensen IV, Pedersen AJ, Hansen HK, Villumsem A, Ribeiro AB (2003): Electrodialytic removal of heavy metals from dierent solid waste products. Separation Science and Technology, 38 (6), 12691289. Pedersen AJ, Ottosen LM, Villumsen A (2003): Electrodialytic removal of heavy metals from dierent y ashes - Inuence of heavy metal speciation in the ashes. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 100 (13), 6578. Polettini A, Pomi R, Sirini P, Testa F (2001): Properties of portland cementstabilised MSWI y ashes. Journal of Hazardous Materials, B88, 123138. Reimann DO (1990): Reststoe aus thermischen abfallverwertungsanlagen. Beihefte zu Mll und Abfall, 29, 1216. u Sabbas T, Polettini A, Pomi R, Astrup T, Hjelmar O, Mostbauer P, Cappai G, Magel G, Salhofer S, Speiser C, Heuss-Assbichler S, Klein R, Lechner P (2003): Management of municipal solid waste incineration residues. Waste Management, 23, 61-88.

50

Sakai S, Hiraoka M (2000): Municipal solid waste incinerator residue recycling by thermal processes. Waste Management, 20, 249258. Sawada K, Matsuda H, Mizutani M (2001): Immobilization of lead compounds in y ash by mixing with asphalt, sulfur and sodium hydroxide. Journal of Chemical Engineering of Japan, 34(7), 878883. Stubenvoll J (1989) The MR-process treatment of MSW residues with reclamation of heavy metals. Thom-Kozmiensky KJ (ed), EF-Verlag, Berlin. e Todorovic J, Ecke H, Lagerkvist A (2003): Solidication with water as a treatment method for air pollution control residues. Waste Management, 23, 621629. Traber D, Mder U, Eggenberger U, Simon FG, Wieckert C (1999): Phase chema istry study of products from the vitrication processes AshArc and Deglor. Glastech.Ber.Glass Sci.Technol., 72 (3), 9198. Vehlow J, Braun H, Horch K, Merz A, Schneider J, Stieglitz L, Vogg H (1990): Semi-technical demonstration of the 3R process. Waste Management and Research, 8, 461. Veolia (2007): Information about utilization of APC residues in UK; Mimosus Project, Veolia Environmental Services, France. Ward DB, Lee PH, Nasserzadeh V, Swithenbank J, McLeod CW, Clarkson P, Upton J, Larming J, Holmes M (2002): Measurement of dioxins in waste incinerator y ash residues and their destruction by sintering. Journal of Solid Waste Technology & Management, 28 (1), 915. Washizu T, Nagasaka T, Hino M (2002): Heat content of liquid Fe-Cu-Si alloys formed in the melting treatment process of domestic waste incineration residue. Z.Metallkd., 93 (4), 281287. Wenzel H, Hauschild M, Alting L (1997): Environmental assessment of products. Volume 1: Methodology, tools and case studies in product development. Chapman & Hall, London, England. Youcai Z, Lijie S, Guojian L (2002): Chemical stabilization of MSW incinerator y ashes. Journal of Hazardous Materials, B95, 4763.

51

52

Appendices

53

Appendix A

Technology information
This appendix provide data for a range of APC residue treatment and management technologies. The data has been collected from technology owners, incinerators, literature, etc. and may be used as a guideline and a basis for performing a lifecycle assessment (LCA) on residue management. It should be clearly stressed that the supplied data are not sucient for carrying out a full LCA and that the data are provided as is. Any use of these data should be accompanied by a critical review of assumptions, data quality, sensitivity of results, etc. and an LCA should follow best-practice, see for example ISO standards 14040, 14041, 14042, and 14043. The technologies, treatment techniques and processes described in this appendix are grouped in three categories: Commercial, Promising, and Experimental. The table below provides an overview. Technology owners, incinerators and stakeholders in general contributing with data and information are greatly acknowledged. Process name Commercial: Asphalt DRH Bulk Material Blending Ferrox FLUWA INERTEC Stabilization Langya NEUTREC Melting: Furnace Melting: Electric Arc Melting: Electric Resistance T.I.L. WesPhix Promising: 3R CTU DHI Semi Fluid Slurry Experimental: Electrolysis Watech Tech info x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x A-1 In-Out data Leaching

x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x

x x x

x x

Comments to the data tables in Appendix A For some of the technologies reported in this appendix, expenses are mentioned as treatment costs and in some cases as price margins (the table eld Economics). In some cases no information is mentioned. Cost information is supplied by the process owners, however it should be acknowledged that there might be a big dierence between price and cost. When reading the data tables in this appendix, attention should be drawn to the following aspects. Generally cost information for the technologies: Backlling material for mines (Liebherr/GTS GmbH), Langya (NOAH) and also Inertec appear to be real price margins (for nal disposal) whereas for the technologies: Ferrox (B&WV), Fluwa (von Roll), WesPhix, DHI and Semi uid slurry (GTS GmbH) cost information are considered as (incomplete) coarse estimates which in some cases do not even include nal landlling costs. It is not specied whether cost information reects only the treatment costs of the specic process or to which extent the total costs for treatment and (nal) disposal are included.

A-2

Standard for documentation of APC residue management solutions


TECHNOLOGY NAME
Manufacturer/developer Contact Process type Technical description Achieved environmental benefits Cross-media effects Operational information Current scale of implementation Name of company, institution, etc. Contact information Type of process according to descriptions in this report Technical description of involved processes, procedures, and activities Main environmental benefits from the point of view of the residues handled Any indirect effects on other media, e.g. wastewater, air emissions, etc. Specific information regarding operation of the processes Lab Bench Pilot Full Commercial Types of residues, situations, etc. in which the technology is applicable Information about cost estimations, economical aspects, etc. Main driving forces for implementing the technology Reference to current implementations of the technology, examples of use, etc. References to public reports, including point of access.

Applicability of technique Economics Driving force of implementation References & examples Main public reports

Inputs
Electricity Water

Units
kWh m3

Per ton of residue treated


Quantification of inputs needed to carry out the techniques, processes, and activities described above. Should include all inputs and be expressed per ton of residue treated or handled.

Outputs
Liquid output pH Cl Sulfate Cd Cr Cu Hg Pb Zn Treated residue Cl Sulfate Cd Cr Cu Hg Pb Zn

Units
m mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
3

Per ton of residue treated


Quantification of liquid outputs, e.g. wastewater, etc.

Composition of this output. All liquid outputs should be quantified individually by volume and composition.

Quantification of solid outputs, e.g. treated residue, slags, etc.

Composition of solid outputs. All solid outputs should be quantified individually by mass and composition.

Residue leachate pH Cl Sulfate Cd Cr Cu Hg Pb Zn Flue gas Cl Sulfate Cd Cr Cu Hg Pb Zn Dioxin

mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l Nm3 mg/Nm3 mg/Nm3 mg/Nm3 mg/Nm3 mg/Nm3 mg/Nm3 mg/Nm3 mg/Nm3 ng-TEQ/m3

Composition of leachate from solid outputs. Leaching from all solid outputs should be quantified individually by composition. The leaching test used should be noted.

Quantification of gaseous outputs, e.g. flue gas

Composition of gaseous outputs. All gaseous outputs should be quantified individually by volume and composition.

All inputs and outputs should be described and quantified as indicated above for the full process, including for example pretreatment of the residues, mixing, actual treatment, as well as transport to final placement if this is an integral part of the technology. Relevant outputs should be added if necessary. The composition parameters illustrated above should not be viewed as exhaustive: all relevant data should be included.

Asphalt
Manufacturer/developer Contact Process type Technical description Ankerpoort nv, The Netherlands

Solidification + utilization The residues are transported dry to a temporary storage and pretreatment facility. Here the residues are grinded, homogenized, and mixed with other materials to produce a filler material which can be used in asphalt production. The filler content of the final asphalt is about 5 % per weight. In the Netherlands, maximum about 25 % of the filler is substituted by fly ashes. Achieved environmental benefits The residues are solidified thereby limiting release of contaminants to the surrounding environment. At the same time natural resources are saved. Cross-media effects The technique substitutes limestone on a 1:1 basis per weight of fly ash. Operational information Current scale of implementation Lab Bench Pilot Full x Commercial Applicability of technique The technique is only applicable for dry fly ashes without neutralization products from neutralization of acidic components. Economics Driving force of implementation In the Netherlands, several different materials are routinely used as filler in asphalt production thereby substituting natural resources. The produced asphalt is later recycled in a closed loop. References & examples The technique is well established in the Netherlands, but also Belgium has experiences with the technique. Main public reports Data mainly from: Milieueffectrapport Landelijk Afvalbeheerplan, Achtergronddocument A25, Uitwerking "AVI-vliegas", Afval Overleg Orgaan, 2002

Inputs
Energy Limestone River sand River grind Bitumen

Units
kWh kg kg kg kg

Per ton of residue treated


? 4000 29,200 45,800 3300

Outputs
Wastewater Treated residue (asphalt) Cl Sulfate Cd Cr Cu Hg Pb Zn Leachate pH Cl Sulfate

Units
m kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
3

Per ton of residue treated


0 83,300 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

mg/l mg/l

Cd Cr Cu Hg Pb Zn

mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l

? ? ? ? ? ?

DRH
Manufacturer/developer Contact Process type Technical description Dansk Restprodukthndtering A.m.b.a. Finn Petersen, fnp@drh-amba.dk Water extraction + chemical stabilization The DRH includes a combined washing and stabilization step. The residues are mixed with water to extract easily soluble components, then the suspension is flushed with CO2 (e.g. treated flue gas from an incinerator or industrial process). Heavy metals are bound primarily as carbonates (similar to the DHI process). The treated residues are then dewatered and landfilled. Achieved environmental benefits Leaching from treated residues are generally below EU acceptance criteria for non-hazardous waste landfills. Cross-media effects The process generates salty waste water which has to be treated and discharged. The use of CO2 in the process may facilitate net reductions in emissions from the source of flue gas (e.g. the incinerator). Operational information Current scale of implementation Lab Bench Pilot Full x Commercial Applicability of technique Can be used on fly ashes as well as residues from dry and semi-dry systems Economics Driving force of implementation Reduction of leaching from the residues. References & examples The process has been tested in lab and pilot scale setups. No full scale plants are currently available. The manufacturer has an agreement with von Roll to supply full scale plants. Main public reports None available. Information about the process has been obtained from the Dansk Restprodukthndtering A.m.b.a.

Inputs
Electricity Water NaOH HCl TMT CO2

Units
kWh m3 kg kg kg kg

Per ton of residue treated


63 4 4.3 8.4 0.5 169

Outputs
Treated residue As Ca Cd Cr Cu Hg Mn Na Ni Pb S Zn

Units
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

Per ton of residue treated


1375 240 230 160 600 11,000 4.4 0.88 13 1,200 9,100 96,800 52,000

Wastewater As Cd Cl Cr Cu F Hg Ni Pb Zn Residue leachate pH Cl Sulfate Cd Cr Cu Hg Pb Zn

m3 g/l g/l g/l g/l g/l g/l g/l g/l g/l g/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l

3.5 <10 <10 <35,000,000 <5 <10 <5,000 <2 <10 <20 <100 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Bulk material blending


Manufacturer/developer Contact Process type Technical description Liebherr / GTS GmbH & Co. KG info@grube-teutschenthal.de Solidifcation + utilization The residues are blended in charges of about 1.5 m with mud cake and waste fluids within a modified mixer from the cement industry. The setting properties of the residue causes the former dustlike and fluid material to become a bulk material which can be handled in an open fashion with loadhaul-dump technology. Mud cake e.g. from waste water purifying plants is firstly used as a filler and secondly as a supplier of fluid components for the mixing recipe. The produced bulk material is then used as backfill of excavations leftover from the mining activities in the former potash mine. The backfilling is necessary in order to prevent future earthquake like rock bumps caused by the collapse of pillars within the mine. Achieved environmental benefits The waste materials used as components for the backfill are contaminated with hazardous elements in such a small concentration which makes a recycling process nearly impossible from a financial and technical point of view. The build up within the mine extracts therefore these hazardous waste materials from the biosphere for a geological long-term period of time. The main advantage is the utilization of waste material as backfill which Cross-media effects otherwise would have been composed of building material which again would have to be produced. Either by recycling or newly mined material. The technique therefore substitutes otherwise usable resources. Lab Current scale of implementation Bench Pilot Full X Commercial The technique can be used on all types of APC residues as long as the Applicability of technique concentration of hazardous materials keeps within the limits which are defined by German law for underground mining. While keeping in mind that the blending with other Materials (fluids and mud cake) dilutes up to a certain extend. The treatment and utilization within the backfilling of the mine with residues Economics arise from 70,- up to 100,-/ton. This is an indicative price margin for average waste material which is used in the above described utilization. The main reason for the application of the described technique is firstly the Driving force of implementation stabilization of underground pillars and secondly in the commercial value of the business. A similar technique was used on the mine Wohlverwahrt-Nammen near References & examples Minden, Germany. It is being applied comparable in Kochendorf, Germany, but where the blended material is filled into big-bags before it is backfilled under ground. Main public reports

Inputs
Electricity Water Diesel Waste mud cake Waste fluids

Units
kWh m3 l kg kg

Per ton of residue treated


29 0.115 1.5 277 208

Outputs
Wastewater pH Cl Sulfate Cd
a)

Units
m mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l
3

Per ton of residue treated


none 7.5 24000 7800 0.0056

Cr mg/l < 0.05 Cu mg/l 0.01 Hg mg/l < 0.0002 Pb mg/l < 0,005 Zn mg/l 0.18 b) Treated residue kg 1485 pH 11.8 Cd mg/kg 130 Cr mg/kg 269 Cu mg/kg 739 Hg mg/kg 14.7 Pb mg/kg 2400 Zn mg/kg 10720 Dioxins Ng-TEQ/kg 839 a) Wastewater only is produced from the treatment of water within a clarifying tank from the bath of the mine. b) Threshold values which have to be respected from German law are fixed in Versatzverordnung Anlage 1 and determine when a material primarily should be recycled.

Ferrox stabilization
Manufacturer/developer Contact Process type Technical description Babcock & Vilcox Vlund Kasper Lundtorp: kal@volund.dk Water extraction + chemical stabilization Ferrox stabilization involves five steps: residues are first mixed with a FeSO4 solution and then aerated with atmospheric air at L/S 3 l/kg in order to oxidize Fe(II) to Fe(III) and precipitate iron oxides. This step also includes extraction of soluble salts. The pH of the suspension is maintained at pH 10-11 for about 0.5 to 1 hour to allow dissolved heavy metals to bind to the precipitated iron oxides. The fourth step involves dewatering of the treated residues and finally a washing step to exchange the remaining water and remove salts. The final stabilized product has a water content of about 50 %. Achieved environmental benefits The main advantage is improved leaching properties of the final product. The pollution potential of the treated residues is documented rather detailed and the treated residues are expected to be physically more stable than cement stabilized products because most salts are removed. Ferrox stabilized residues typically have far better leaching properties than cement solidified residues. Cross-media effects Utilization of the stabilized product in road construction after mixing with cement has been investigated. Also, utilization after sintering with bottom ashes has been suggested. The FeSO4 used in the process is a waste product from titanium production. Operational information Parameters like water consumption, mixing of water and residues, Fe(II) oxidation rate, reaction time, pH and pH controlling additive have been optimized in pilot scale. The process is robust with respect to the residue input. Typical process times are 20-50 minutes aeration and 30-60 minutes reaction. In the current set-up, dewatering of the treated residues was done with a plate and frame filter press. Current scale of implementation Lab Bench X Pilot (200 kg batchwise corresponding to 1:20 of full scale) X Full (drafted, no full scale plants installed) X Commercial Applicability of technique The stabilization unit can be implemented as an integrated part of the incinerator but may also exist as a centralized treatment plant handling residues from several incinerators. The technique has been demonstrated on semidry APC residues as well as fly ash alone and fly ash combined with sludge from the wet scrubbers (Bamberg product); all with good results. About 80 test runs have been performed in pilot scale. Economics Treatment cost for Ferrox stabilization is estimated to about 65/ton with a plant capacity of 20,000 ton/year; including investment costs. Driving force of implementation The main reason for implementing this technology is the very good leaching properties of the treated residues and the fact that this is expected to last in a long-term perspective. References & examples Pilot plant at I/S Vestforbrnding (DK) Main public reports Lundtorp, K. (2001): The Ferrox-process in an industrial scale. Ph.D. Thesis. Environment & Resources DTU, Technical University of Denmark. (http://www.er.dtu.dk/publications/fulltext/2001/MR2001-221.pdf) Jensen, D.L., Christensen, T.H. & Lundtorp, K. (2002): Treatment of waste incinerator air-pollution-control residues with FeSO4: Laboratory investigation of design parameters. Waste Management and Research, 20, 8089. Lundtorp, K., Jensen, D.L., Srensen, M.A., Christensen, T.H. & Mogensen, E.P.B. (2002): Treatment of waste incinerator air-pollution-control residues with FeSO4: Concept and product characterization. Waste Management and

Research, 20, 69-79.

Inputs
Electricity Water FeSO4

Units
kWh m3 kg

Per ton of residue treated


31 3-4 30-130

Outputs
Wastewater pH Cl Sulfate Cd Cr Cu Hg Pb Zn Treated residue Cl Sulfate Cd Cr Cu Hg Pb Zn Residue leachate pH Cl Sulfate Cd Cr Cu Hg Pb Zn

Units
m mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l
3

Per ton of residue treated


2-3 10.5-11 30000-50000 300-1100 0.003-0.006 0.07-0.09 0.005-0.007 0.0003-0.001 0.03-0.07 0.02-0.1 860 1500 30000-70000 200-300 200-800 900-1800 3-17 5000-7000 20000 11.2 700-900 600-800 < 0.0005 1-4 < 0.001 0.0002-0.0005 0.007-0.009 0.01-0.03

FLUWA
Manufacturer/developer Contact Process type Technical description von Roll, Switzerland Martin Brunner, martin.brunner@vonrollinova.ch Acid extraction The process is only used in combination with wet flue gas cleaning technology combines an acid extraction of soluble heavy metals and salts by using the (acidic) scrubber blow down. Before using the scrubber liquid, mercury is removed by either a filtration (when activated carbon is introduced into the scrubber) and/or a specific ion exchanger. Both boiler ash and fly ash are treated this way. The L/S-ratio in the extraction step is about 4; pH is controlled at 3.5 by addition of hydrated lime. Within the residence time of about 45 minutes, sulphate (from the SO2-scrubber) is precipitated to gypsum. The residue is dewatered, then counter current washed on a belt filter and finally landfilled, normally as a mixture with bottom ash. The filtrate has to be treated in order to remove heavy metals by neutralisation, precipitation and ion exchange. The dewatered and rinsed filter cake contains about 25 % zinc and is therefore recycled in metallurgical processes. Achieved environmental benefits The process removes a significant part of the total amount of heavy metals from the residues (Cd: = 85 %; Zn: = 85 %; Pb, Cu: = 33 %; Hg: = 95 %); the leachability of the residue is reduced by a factor 102 103. Zinc, cadmium and mercury are recycled. Cross-media effects The dioxin content of the bottom ash increases when the treated ash is disposed of in combination with bottom ash; however, the leaching properties of the mixture are even better because of a higher density. The dioxin content can, however, be reduced by recirculating the treated residues trough the incineration. Operational information Start-up of the first plant was 1996. Most of the plants are operating 24h and are adapting the weekly operation period (4 7 days) according to the generated APC residues. Current scale of implementation Lab Bench Pilot Full X Commercial Applicability of technique The system is preferably used on incinerators with a wet APC system having a permit for discharge of treated waste-water. If salts cannot be discharged with the spent water, the feasibility of the process has to be evaluated case by case. Economics Process costs of treating the APC-residues are about 150 250 EUR/t (including charges for recycling the zinc filter cake) Driving force of implementation The technique provides a method to treat residues according to the Swiss legislation with competitive (to the export in German underground disposal in salt mines) costs. References & examples Switzerland: Berne, Buchs SG, Emmenspitz, Niederurnen, Thun, Lausanne. Czech Republic: Liberec. Main public reports Faey R (1991): Ein Verfahren zur behandlung von flugstuben. AbfallwirtschaftsJournal, 3, 194. Frey, R., Brunner, M.: Recycling von Zink aus Elektrofilterasche, in: Optimierung der Abfallverbrennung Mrz 2004, TK Verlag, Berlin

Inputs
Energy Water Acid

Units
kWh m3 l

Per ton of residue treated


? 0 (water recycled from wet scrubbing process) ?

Outputs
Wastewater

Units
m
3

Per ton of residue treated


No additional waste used in the process

Treated residue kg ? a) Residue leachate Cd mg/l < 0.01 Cr(III) / Cr(IV) mg/l < 0.05 / < 0.01 Cu mg/l < 0.2 Hg mg/l < 0.005 Pb mg/l < 0.1 Zn mg/l < 1.0 a) Maximum values according to TVA (Vehlow 1.4.1996). Evaluation by Swiss Leaching Test.

Langya
Manufacturer/developer Contact Process type Technical description NOAH AS, Norway info@noah.no Water extraction + acid extraction + solidification with gypsum The residues are crushed in order to remove aggregates. First, residues are mixed with water at a density of about 1,5 ton/m3 and stored in tanks with stirring devices. The slurry is pumped through a grinder in order to remove granulates and larger particles. The residue slurry is then mixed with waste acid and slaked lime. The addition of residue and limestone slurry to the acid is controlled to maintain a pH of 4-5. In this step gypsum is precipitated along with some of the heavy metals (hydroxides). In the third step, remaining metals (iron as well as other heavy metals) are precipitated by adding slaked lime in order to raise the pH to about 8-9. The final mixture is pumped to an old limestone quarry. Remaining residue solids, gypsum and precipitated metals are then deposited at the bottom by sedimentation and consolidation of the gypsum. Water is recycled and used in the neutralization process. Surplus water from the process is treated to remove heavy metals before discharge. Achieved environmental benefits Excess lime and buffer capacity in the APC residues are utilised in the neutralisation process, and a part of the available heavy metals is precipitated mainly as metal hydroxides as well as incorporated in the gypsum. This probably results in some level of heavy metal retention, however it is not likely that this type of processing - in a long-term perspective - significantly reduces leaching. The deposit is not hydraulically connected to the surrounding sea but excess water from the deposit is treated to remove heavy metals and discharged to the sea. This is likely to continue while the facilities are in operation, however when the area is reclaimed the long-term leaching is determined by the contact with infiltrating water. Cross-media effects The utilization of excess lime in the residues substitutes limestone from the quarry on the island. As a result of this, the heavy metal content of the excess surface water from the facilities is increased. Operational information None available. Current scale of implementation Lab Bench Pilot Full X Commercial Applicability of technique The technique can be used on all types of APC residues with equal success. Also other types of ashes could be used in the process. Economics A typical cost for treatment and disposal is estimated to 50 without transport to the treatment facility (Langya, Norway). Driving force of implementation The authorities in Norway accept the utilization of APC residues in the acid neutralization process, and the deposit prolongs the lifetime of the limestone quarry. References & examples The technique is used only at the Langya Island in Norway. About 100.000 ton APC residues are treated annually. Main public reports Information about the process has been obtained from Miljstyrelsen (2005) and NOAH AS (www.noah.no).

Inputs
Electricity Diesel Waste acid Slaked lime Water Chemicals (waste water)

Units
kWh l kg kg m3 kg

Per ton of residue treated


13 0.6 1600 ? 0.9 0.002

Outputs
Wastewater Cl Sulfate Cd Cr Cu Hg Pb Zn Dioxins Treated residue pH Cl Sulfate Cd Cr Cu Hg Pb Zn Dioxins

Units
m mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l ng-TEQ/l kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg ng-TEQ/kg
3

Per ton of residue treated


1.7 5400 480 0.0018 0 0 0.00004 0.00018 0.0084 0.0042 3400 9.5 35000 0 50 50 50 10 200 500 0.0012

INERTEC Stabilization and Solidification


Manufacturer/developer Contact Process type Technical description INERTEC Philippe de Rochebout / Marie-Claire Magni / Stphane Lebrave Solidification and stabilization Stabilization : transform the polluting agents contained in the waste into stable and non soluble products by chemical fixation Solidification : change the waste into a solid matrix with low porosity and low permeability which ensures physical and chemical stability (Patented processes) Achieved environmental benefits Insolubilisation of polluting agents Mechanical properties are improved so stability of the landfill site is improved too Cross-media effects Reutilization of output products : impossible in France for hazardous waste, depends on legislation of the considered country Possibility of using wastewater or leachates instead of clean water Possibility of using sub-products of industrial processes instead of reagents Possibility of mixing different wastes in order to optimize chemical reactions (for example acid waste and alkaline waste) Operational information Physico-chemical treatment of Hazardous Waste (for example fly-ashes from incineration plants) Storage of water and reagents Test and choice of the right formula for the specific waste Mixing of waste with the different reagents and water Current scale of implementation Solidification and storage of the mortar in the landfill Lab Bench Pilot Full X Commercial Applicable to all kinds of incinerators and fly ashes Applicable to many different kinds of hazardous waste Analysis of new hazardous waste before creating a new formula : adaptation of the process (reagents, mix) to each waste or waste type characteristics Database of treatment formulations for over 2.000 different hazardous waste Fly-ashes : 200-220 /ton including landfill of the stabilized waste Other hazardous waste : between 150 and 220 /ton (in France) Costs can be different according to legislation and local context Legislation Technical compromise between objectives of the law and costs Applicability to every kind of fly-ashes and hazardous waste No output of secondary waste after treatment Automatic process Proved technique More than 2 000 000 tons of hazardous waste treated with Inertec processes in inertization plants on landfill sites : Jeandelaincourt (F-54) : 30.000 ton per year, since 1993 Bellegarde (F-30) : 60.000 ton per year 1995 Villeparisis (F-77) : 100.000 ton per year since 1995 Drambon (F-21) : 20.000 ton per year since 1998 Champteuss-sur-Baconne (F-49) : 30.000 ton per year since 1995

Applicability of technique

Economics

Driving force of implementation

References & examples

Main public reports

Vaivre (F-52) : 40.000 ton per year since 1996 Laimont (F-55) : 20.000 ton per year since 1996 Valorsul (Portugal) : 30.000 ton per year since 1999 FNADE study on storage of hazardous waste 2002 ALBI, WASTEENG 2005 / Mai 2005 Modeling of the impact of a hazardous waste storage centre : sensitivity study M.A. Aubry (Inertec) M.C. Magni (Inertec) A. Budka (Sita France) I. Martin (Sita FD) Stabilisation / Solidification Experience in France P.Y. Klein (Inertec) M.C. Magni (Inertec) TRAVAUX n 800 / 2003 Rehabilitation of ballast pond in Brest by active barrier and in situ stabilisation M.C. Magni (Inertec) A. Barbier (Inertec) J.J. Kachrillo (SoletancheBachy) TRAVAUX n769 / November 2000 "Use of household bottom ash in civil engineering : strengthening of underground quarries" JY Cojan (Inertec) - MC Magnie (Inertec) - E Gastine CONGRES STAB&ENV / Avril 1999 "Industrial feedback about stabilisation / solidification of industrial waste" A Bouchelaghem (Inertec)

Inputs
Water Reagentsa) Sludgeb)

Units
m kg kg
c) 3

Per ton of residue treated


0.1 to 0.6 (can be replaced by dirty water) 200-500 500-1500

Outputs

Units

Per ton of residue treated

Treated residue kg 1200-2000 pH 11-12.5 Cl mg/kg 4000-200,000 Sulfate mg/kg 2000-5000 Cd mg/kg 50-500 Cr mg/kg 100-1000 Cu mg/kg 100-2000 Hg mg/kg < 100 Pb mg/kg 200-5000 Zn mg/kg 200-40,000 d) Residue leachate pH mg/l 11-12.5 Cl TDS < 10 % Sulfate TDS < 10 % Cd mg/l <5 Cr mg/l < 70 Cu mg/l < 100 Hg mg/l <2 Pb mg/l < 50 Zn mg/l < 200 a) Reagents depending on waste type and local availability b) Depending on waste to be treated, availability and characteristics c) About 1 m3/ton d) According to French regulation for HW: EN 12 457 2 (granular waste) and NF X 31-211 (monolithic waste)

NEUTREC
Manufacturer/developer Contact Process type Technical description NEUTREC / Solvay S.A.

Solidification + water extraction + recovery Several variations of this process exist depending on whether fly ashes are collected separately or not. The process is used in combination with dry flue gas cleaning systems (sodium bicarbonate): "residual sodium chemicals" (i.e. neutralization products) are dissolved in water with a controlled pH and certain additives. The suspension is filtered and the resulting solution then filtered by activated coal and ion exchangers to produce a brine suitable for sodium carbonate production. If fly ashes are collected separately, these may be washed separately but the filtrate may used for washing of the neutralization products from the dry process (the dewatered residues are then chemically and thermally stabilized before landfilling). If fly ashes are collected together with the neutralization products (i.e. a single filter), hydraulic binders (and other additives) may be added before washing. Again, the dewatered residues are landfilled. Achieved environmental benefits The brine may substitute raw materials in the production of sodium carbonate. Lower leaching from treated residues than without treatment. Cross-media effects Substitution of raw material for sodium carbonate production. Operational information Current scale of implementation Lab Bench Pilot Full x Commercial Applicability of technique The technique is only applicable for dry/semi-dry systems Economics Driving force of implementation References & examples Main public reports NEUTREC web site: http://www.neutrec.com/process/0,0,1000052_EN,00.html

Inputs
Energy Water Additives

Units
kWh m3 kg

Per ton of residue treated


? ? ?

Outputs
Recyclable brine Treated residue Cl Sulfate Cd Cr Cu Hg Pb Zn Residue leachate pH Cl Sulfate

Units
kg kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/l mg/l mg/l

Per ton of residue treated


7-101) 1-31) ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Cd mg/l ? Cr mg/l ? Cu mg/l ? Hg mg/l ? Pb mg/l ? Zn mg/l ? 1) In cases where only reacted sodium bicarbonate (i.e. the dry product) is treated. If fly ashes are cotreated up to about 16 kg of brine can be produced, but also about 30-50 kg of (treated) fly ashes are produced.

Melting: Electric Arc


Manufacturer/developer Contact Process type Technical description Daido Steel Koichiro Kinto (http://www.daido.co.jp/english/index.html) Melting Vibrating sieve, magnetic separation, drying, melting furnace, gas cooler, bag filter, APC residue stabilization (exhaust gas go to incinerater) Achieved environmental benefits Extending the life of landfill sites and decomposition of dioxins. Cross-media effects Operational information Arc plasma of 3000-5000 deg C and slag temperature of 1400-1600 deg C, oxidized conditions. Current scale of implementation Lab Bench Pilot Full X Commercial Applicability of technique Mixture of bottom ash and APC residue Economics Driving force of implementation Extending the life of landfill sites and decomposition of dioxins References & examples Ohta Seisou Koujo Second Plant, Tokyo 23-Ku Seisou Jimukumiai, Japan Main public reports K. Kinto (1998): Ash melting system and reuse of products, Denki-Seiko (Technical Paper of Daido Steel), Vol. 68, No. 4, pp.269-278

Inputs
Electricity Graphite electrode

Units
kWh kg

Per ton of residue treated


550 6-12

Outputs
Treated residue Cl Sulfate Pb Zn Dioxins APC residue Air emissions Dioxins Residue leachate Cd Cr Cu Hg Pb Zn

Units
kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg ng-TEQ/m3 kg ng-TEQ/m3 mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l

Per ton of residue treated


900 (including 90 kg of metal) 20-400 10-150 10-60 30-190 0.003 60-100 0.4 < 0.01 < 0.05 < 0.05 ? 0.01 < 0.01

Melting: Electric Resistance


Manufacturer/developer Contact Process type Technical description JFE Engineering Eiichi Shibuya Melting Vibrating sieve (< 25mm), drying, melting furnace, secondary combustion chamber, bag filter, APC residue stabilization (exhaust gas goes to bag filter in incineration plant). Extending the life of landfill sites, decomposition of dioxins, and control of heavy metal leaching from slags. Metal from furnace is used as materials for copper refinement Particle size of < 30mm, under 5 % water content of bottom ash in outlet of drier, slug temperature of 1400-1500 deg C, reducing conditions, residence time of more than 10 hours Lab Bench Pilot Full X Commercial (40 ton/24h * 2 furnace) Mixture of bottom ash and APC residue Extending the life of landfill sites, decomposition of dioxins, and control of heavy metal leaching from slags. Kasugaisi Clean Center, Aichi, Japan E. Shibuya, et al.(1996): Vitrification for fly ash using electric-resistance furnace, NKK Technical Reprot, No. 166, pp.7-11

Achieved environmental benefits Cross-media effects Operational information

Current scale of implementation

Applicability of technique Economics Driving force of implementation References & examples Main public reports

Inputs
Electricity Co-treated waste

Units
kWh kg

Per ton of residue


700-900 0.9

Outputs
Treated residue Pb Dioxins Metal product APC residue Sn Cu Zn Pb Dioxins Residue leachate Cd Cr Se Hg Pb As Air emissions Dioxins

Units
kg mg/kg ng-TEQ/g kg kg g/kg g/kg g/kg g/kg ng-TEQ/g mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l ng-TEQ/m3

Per ton of residue


700-800 15 < 0.01 40-150 20-60 3 2 180-250 4070 0.25 < 0.01 < 0.04 < 0.002 < 0.0005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.41

Melting: Furnace
Manufacturer/developer Contact Process type Technical description Takuma Satoshi Yoshimoto Melting Magnetic separation, vibrating sieve (< 30mm), melting furnace, secondary combustion chamber, heat exchanger, quenching chamber, bag filter, APC residue stabilization Achieved environmental benefits Reduction in MSWI residue to 80 % in weight, decomposition of dioxins in MSWI residue (73 % is removed, the rest is moved into APC residues and exhaust gas), and no heavy metal leaching from slags. Cross-media effects Operational information Current scale of implementation Particle size of <30mm, furnace temp of 1280-1350 deg C Lab Bench Pilot Full X Commercial (13t/24h) Mixture of bottom ash and APC residue. Decomposition of dioxins in MSWI residue and control of heavy metal leaching from slags. Hitachi-Ota Chihou Jimusyo Seiso center, Ibaraki, Japan S. Yoshimot and S. Shibano (2002), A new film melting furnce, its development and operation, Takuma Technical Report, Vol.10, No.2, pp.46-54

Applicability of technique Economics Driving force of implementation References & examples Main public reports

Inputs
Oil

Units
l

Per ton of residue treated


240

Outputs
Treated residue Cd Cr Cu Hg As Se Dioxin Residue leachatea) Cd Cr Cu Hg As Se Raw flue gas from process HCl SOx Dioxin APC residue from processb) Cd Cr

Units
kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg ng-TEQ/g mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l m3 mg/Nm3 mg/Nm3 ng-TEQ/g kg mg/kg mg/kg

Per ton of residue treated


11,000 <5 < 0.5 < 0.005 85 1.6 <1 0 < 0.01 < 0.05 < 0.0005 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 3700 (Combustion chamber outlet), 5500 (Bag filter outlet) 500 2.4 0.068 51 400 < 0.5

Cu mg/kg 48 Hg mg/kg 22,800 As mg/kg 74 Se mg/kg <1 Dioxin ng-TEQ/g 0.38 a) JLT46 b) Dioxin (Secondary Combustion Chamber outlet), SOx-HCl (quench chamber outlet)

T.I.L. Integrated LAB ash Treatment process


Manufacturer/developer Contact Process type Technical description LAB S.A.

The LAB Integrated T.I.L. ash Treatment, is a group of processes applicable to the specific flue gas cleaning unit of the plant. It could be integrated in a wet scrubbing process (acid T.I.L.) or separated (neutral T.I.L.) from the scrubbing system. Here is detailed the acid ash treatment process which involves several steps: - the boiler ashes are crushed and mixed with fly ashes from ESP, - the humidified product is transferred to the acid scrubber, - the scrubbing water with ashes is sent to a settler where flocculent is added, - the continuous over-flow is sent to the waste water treatment plant, - the under-flow composed of treated ashes and gypsum is rinsed using water or an additional reagent and dewatered on a vacuum band filter, - the dewatered ashes with a water content of 50% about and a salt content lower than 5% of dry matter are mixed with slag and discharged from the plant. Achieved environmental benefits Reduction of ash eco-toxicity and ash quantity. On-site ash stabilization process to produce a potential by-product in order to achieve compliance with different leaching or percolation test protocols. Cross-media effects Land-filling of residual product as non-hazardous residue instead of hazardous residue fulfillment of EU Directive 2033/33/EG. Operational information Current scale of implementation Lab Bench Pilot Full X Commercial Applicability of technique All flue gas cleaning equipped with a wet scrubbing system. Driving force of implementation Integral part of a wet flue gas cleaning (acid T.I.L.) or not (neutral T.I.L.). References & examples Acid T.I.L. ash treatment process: in operation since 2001 in SAIDEF Fribourg Waste-to-Energy plant (Switzerland). Neutral T.I.L. ash treatment process: in 2006 in Sundsvall Energi Waste-toEnergy plant (Sweden). Main public reports B.Siret, F.Gourmelon, A.Praud-Tabaries (2004): Reduction of fly ash ecotoxicity by an integrated wet scrubbing process. Laboratoire RCMO, Universit de Toulon et du Var. B.Siret (2004) : Reduction of fly ash eco-toxicity by an integrated wet scrubbing process. ITTT 2004, Phoenix (Arizona). F.Tabaries (1995) : Contribution ltude de la paragnse et des traitements des rsidus solides issus de lincinration des dchets mnagers et industriels. Thse en chimie et chimie physique, Universit de Toulon et du Var.

Inputs
Electricity Water Sulfide organic reagenta) NaOH 50% Co-treated boiler ash Co-treated ESP ash

Units
kWh m3 l kg kg kg

Per ton of residue treated


5,9 0 (water is re-cycled to the wet scrubbing process) 3-10 3-5 15 ? 17 ?

Outputs
Treated residue Cd Cu Hg Pb Zn Residue leachate Cd Cr Cu Hg Pb Zn Waste water from plant

Units
kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l

Per ton of residue treated


20-30 (50 % dry) 30-65 0,15-0,25 40-80 0,5-1 0,9-1,6 0,02-0,1 0,01-2 0,02-0,5 0,001-0,1 0,09-1 2-10 Waste water is re-cycled to the process and sludge is combined and treated in the waste water treatment plant 10000-20000 0,01-0,05 0,01-0,1 0,02-0,1 0,001-0,005 0,04-0,1 0,2-0,5

Cl mg/l Cd mg/l Cr mg/l Cu mg/l Hg mg/l Pb mg/l Zn mg/l a) Or or H3PO4 or Na2CO3 or HCl or water

WesPhix
Manufacturer/developer Contact Process type Technical description Wheelabrator Technologies Inc, NH, USA Mark Lyons, mlyons@wm.com Chemical stabilization Chemical stabilisation with phosphate as the stabilisation agent is used in the WESPHix stabilisation process. The treatment process is relatively simple, and consists of a mixing device (such as a pug mill) into which the residues are fed at a controlled rate. A proprietary form of soluble phosphate is then added to the mixer. After the phosphate is thoroughly mixed with the residues, a conveyor at the end of the mixer then removes the treated product. In some cases, depending of the characteristics of the residue input, other additives such as lime are used. Reaction kinetics are fast and the residue is considered fully treated without further curing (Wheelabrator, 2002). Achieved environmental benefits The process retains salts in the treated product, thus facilitating a substantial leaching of these and increased solubility of some heavy metals (e.g. Pb and Cd) after landfilling. Compared to the Ferrox and VKI processes relatively small amounts of water are added along with the phosphate. The release of salt and heavy metals is expected to be higher than is the case with Ferrox and VKI treated residues. Cross-media effects The process produces no wastewater. There are currently no suggestions for utilisation of the treated product. Operational information The specific amounts of water and phosphate as well as other additives are likely to vary according to the residue properties, however no quantification of this has been available. Current scale of implementation Lab Bench Pilot Full X Commercial Applicability of technique The process is in all but one case implemented as an integrated unit at the incinerator, but can also be set up as a centralised plant treating residues from more than one incinerator. The process was originally developed to treat MSWI residues, however several other waste types (e.g. contaminated soil, slags, sludges, etc.) have been suggested and tested (Wheelabrator, 2002). Economics The treatment cost for WES-PHIX stabilisation is about 15 per ton of APC residue. In addition to this a royalty is charged for use of the patented process amounting to 5-10 per ton. Investment costs are in the order of about 150,000-500,000 per installation depending on existing equipment (Wheelabrator, 2002). Driving force of implementation The main reason for implementation of the technique is simplicity of operation and, at least currently, extensive commercial use in the United States, Japan and Taiwan. The treated product is generally accepted as suitable for landfilling in these countries References & examples The process is currently used in North America, Japan and Taiwan at about 90 MSWI facilities treating over 2 million tons of bottom ash and APC residues per year. Main public reports Eighmy et al. (1995), Eighmy et al. (1997)

Inputs
Electricity Water Reagents

Units
kWh m3 kg

Per ton of residue treated


? ? ?

Outputs
Treated residue Residue leachate

Units
kg

Per ton of residue treated


? ?

3R
Manufacturer/developer Contact Process type Technical description Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe GmbH Jrgen Vehlow Acid extraction + sintering The process combines an acid extraction of boiler and fly ash with sintering of the acid treated product with bottom ashes on the grate. Hg is separated from the acidic scrubber solution before mixing with the ashes at L/S 7-10 and pH 3-4 for about 30 minutes. Extraction efficiency is about: 90 % (Cd), 70 % (Zn), 20-40 % (other metals). In total about 20 % of solids are extracted. Residues are dewatered and routed to the waste hopper together with the normal waste. Heavy metals in the waste water have to be removed. Achieved environmental benefits Improved leaching properties of fly ashes. Cross-media effects Only a single solid residue is produced, i.e. the amount of bottom ashes are increased. Operational information None Available. Current scale of implementation Lab Bench Pilot X Full Commercial Applicability of technique Incinerators equipped with wet flue gas cleaning systems Economics Driving force of implementation Reduction of residue leaching References & examples TAMARA pilot plant, Karlsruhe, Germany Main public reports Vehlow J, Braun H, Horch K, Merz A, Schneider J, Stieglitz L, Vogg H (1990): Semi-technical demonstration of the 3R process. Waste Management & Research, 8, 461. Vehlow J, Geisert H (1993): Characterization of the leaching behaviour of 3R products. 3rd. Int. Concerence on Municipal Waste Combustion, March 30April 2, 1993, Willamsburg, VA.

Inputs
Energy Acid

Units
kWh m3

Per ton of residue treated


? ?

Outputs
Wastewater Treated residue Residue leachate

Units
m kg
3

Per ton of residue treated


? ? ?

CTU
Manufacturer/developer Contact Process type Technical description Conzepte Technik Umwelt AG Martin Schaub, martin.schaub@ctu.ch Melting The residues are mixed with pretreated car shredder waste (crushing, metal removal) in a primary melting furnace heated by a gas burner to about 2000 C. Slag, dust and gases moves to a secondary furnace kept at 1400 C. Melted slag and metals are removed from the bottom of this furnace, while gases are treated in a wet cleaning system and also utilized for electricity production and heat. Wastewater from gas cleaning is treated for heavy metals. Slags are quenched, and can be separated from molten metals. Improved leaching properties of the residues, and potential utilization of residues as construction material. Destruction of POP's. The use of car shredder waste as energy supply and energy recovery in the process minimizes the use of other fuels. A Zn containing metal product may be routed to further recovery. None available. Lab Bench X Pilot Full Commercial The process can be used on all APC residues, but cannot be performed solely on residues. Treatment of car shredder waste and residues, and possible reutilization of solid residues. Currently investigated in a pilot plan at MEFOS, Sweden. A full scale plant (100,000 tons annually) has been drafted in Switzerland. None available. Information gathered from Danish EPA, 2005

Achieved environmental benefits Cross-media effects

Operational information Current scale of implementation

Applicability of technique Economics Driving force of implementation References & examples Main public reports

Inputs
Electricity Natural gas (CH4) Car shredder waste Oxygen (O2) Nitrogen (N2) Lime Water TMT-15 HCl Active carbon Ammonia

Units
kWh kg kg kg kg kg kg kg kg kg kg

Per ton of residue treated


9.6 8 962 587 7 117 3990 0.1 0.2 0.6 1.2

Outputs
Electricity Heat Slag Cl Sulfate Cd Cr

Units
kWh kWh kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg

Per ton of residue treated


188 2606 1000 600 300 2 2700

Cu Hg Pb Zn Dioxin Metal alloy Cl Sulfate Cd Cr Cu Hg Pb Zn Dioxin Gypsum (flue gas) Cl Sulfate Cd Cr Cu Hg Pb Zn Dioxin Sludge (wastewater) Hg Treated wastewater pH Cl Sulfate Cd Cr Cu Hg Pb Zn Dioxin Flue gas Cl Sulfate Cd Cr Cu Hg Pb Zn Dioxin

mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg ng-TEQ/g kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg ng-TEQ/g kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg ng-TEQ/g kg mg/kg m3 mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l ng-TEQ/g m3 mg/Nm3 mg/Nm3 mg/Nm3 mg/Nm3 mg/Nm3 mg/Nm3 mg/Nm3 mg/Nm3 ng-TEQ/m3

1800 1 180 3900 < 100 98 33,000 < 1000 3000 200 12,000 < 20 96,000 258,000 135 < 20,000 186,000 <4 <2 <4 < 10 <5 < 10 100 0.4 150,000 2.3 6.5-8.5 44,000 0.6 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 10-7 0.0001 0.002 < 10-6 5100 7 25 0.01 < 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.08 ? 0.02

DHI Stabilization
Manufacturer/developer Contact Process type Technical description DHI - Water and Environment, Denmark Ole Hjelmar, oh@dhi.dk Water extraction + chemical stabilization The VKI stabilisation resembles in many respects the Ferrox stabilisation process, however the chemical agents used here are CO2 and/or H3PO4. The VKI-process involves a two-step procedure where the residues are first washed at L/S 3 l/kg in order to extract soluble salts. After this the residues are dewatered and washed again in a plate and frame filter press at L/S 3 l/kg. The residues are then re-suspended, and CO2 and/or H3PO4 are added. The stabilisation reactions are allowed to occur for 1-1.5 hours while pH decreases, and another hour where pH is maintained around pH 7. Finally, the residues are dewatered again and washed at the filter press with another 3 l/kg. The final product has a water content of about 50 %. The use of CO2 and H3PO4 as stabilising agent ensures that heavy metals are bound as carbonates or phosphates. Achieved environmental benefits VKI stabilisation shows very good leaching properties similar to the Ferrox stabilisation. Metal carbonates and phosphates are known to generally have low solubilities, and the leaching characteristics of VKI stabilised residues are expected to remain good for extended periods of time. The pollution potential of the treated residues is documented extensively and physical disintegration of the treated residues in a long-term perspective is expected to be less important than in the case of cement stabilisation, because of the fact that most salts are removed. VKI stabilised residues typically have far better leaching properties than cement solidified residues. The VKI process reduces the amount of residue by about 15 % per dry weight. Cross-media effects No reutilisation strategies have yet been demonstrated. The process produces wastewater from first dewatering step. All other process water is recycled in the process. The wastewater needs to be treated for dissolved heavy metals in a standard unit, for example using pH adjustment and TMT addition. Operational information The process has been demonstrated in pilot scale at a plant treating residues in batches of about 200 kg dry weight. Parameters like water consumption, mixing of water and residues, CO2 and H3PO4 addition, reaction time, pH and pH controlling approach have been optimised. It has been demonstrated that the process is robust with respect to the properties of the residue input, although some variations in process parameters arise. Depending on residue composition, either CO2 or H3PO4 or both have been used. It has also been demonstrated that flue gas can be used as a CO2 source. Typical process data for 1 ton of residue are: 5-20 kg of CO2, 0-40 kg H3PO4 and 3 m3 water. Current scale of implementation Lab Bench X Pilot X Full Commercial Applicability of technique The stabilisation unit can be implemented as an integrated part of the incinerator but may also exist as a centralised treatment plant handling residues from several incinerators. The technique has been demonstrated on semi-dry APC residues as well as fly ash alone and fly ash combined with sludge from the wet scrubbers (Bamberg product; Reimann, 1990); all with good results. Economics Treatment cost for VKI stabilisation is estimated to about 80/ton with a plant capacity of 20,000 ton/year; including investment costs. Driving force of implementation The main reason for implementing this technology is the very good leaching properties of the treated residues and the fact that this is expected to last in a long-term perspective. References & examples The process has only been demonstrated in pilot scale, however it has also been designed in full scale. No full-scale plants have yet been implemented.

Main public reports

The technique has been developed at DHI - Water and Environment, Denmark in collaboration with I/S Vestforbrnding and I/S Amagerforbrnding. Hjelmar O; Birch H; Hansen JB (2001): Treatment of APC residues from MSW incineration: Development and optimisation of a treatment process in pilot scale. Proceedings Eighth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium, 1, 667-675.

Inputs
Electricity Water CO2 H3PO4 Chemicals (wastewater)

Units
kWh m3 kg kg kg

Per ton of residue treated


? 3 5-20 0-40 ?

Outputs
Wastewater Sludge (wastewater) Treated residue Residue leachatea) pH Cl Sulfate Cd Cr Cu Hg Pb Zn a) EN 12457 (L/S 2 l/kg)

Units
m3 kg kg mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l

Per ton of residue treated


3 ? 850 10 780 1600 0.004 0.1 0.003 0.0077 0.009 0.01

Semi fluid slurry


Manufacturer/developer Contact Process type Technical description GTS GmbH & Co. KG info@grube-teutschenthal.de Solidification + utilization The residues are continuously blended within a mixer as part of a recipe which is composed of residues, fluids and a small portion of cement. Goal of the recipe is to produce a slurry which can be transported via pipes under ground. The produced slurry is then pumped as backfill into excavations leftover from the mining activities in the former potash mine. The backfilling is necessary in order to prevent future earthquake like rock bumps caused by the collapse of pillars within the mine. The goal of the recipe is to create a material which will tie off without producing overflow water. Excess water in a salt mine can damage pillars which are necessary for the stabilization of the under ground strata. Achieved environmental benefits The waste materials used as components for the backfill are contaminated with hazardous elements in such a small concentration which makes a recycling process nearly impossible from a financial and technical point of view. The build up within the mine extracts therefore these hazardous waste materials from the biosphere for a geological long-term period of time. The main advantage is the utilization of waste material as backfill which Cross-media effects otherwise would have been composed of building material which again would have to be produced. Either by recycling or newly mined material. The technique therefore substitutes otherwise usable resources. Operational information Lab Current scale of implementation Bench X Pilot Full Commercial The technique can be used up till now only on a small number of APC Applicability of technique residues which have the suitable setting properties for the recipes and do not produce overflow water. The treatment and utilization within the backfilling of the mine with residues Economics arise from 60,- up to 90,-/ton. This is an indicative price margin for average waste material which is used in the above described utilization. Driving force of implementation The main reason for the application of the described technique is firstly the stabilization of underground pillars and secondly in the commercial value of the business. A similar technique is used on the potash mine Unterbreizbach in Germany. References & examples Main public reports

Inputs
Electricity Water Cement Waste fluids

Units
kWh m3 kg kg

Per ton of residue treated


8 not yet determine 50 700

Outputs
Wastewater pH Cl Sulfate Cd Cr Cu Hg Pb
a)

Units
m mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l
3

Per ton of residue treated


? 7.5 24000 7800 0.0056 < 0.05 0.01 < 0.0002 < 0,005

Zn mg/l 0.18 Treated residue kg 1700 a) Wastewater only is produced from the treatment of water within a clarifying tank from the bath of the mine.

Electrolysis
Manufacturer/developer Contact Process type Technical description BYGDTU, Denmark Lisbeth Ottosen; lo@byg.dtu.dk Water extraction The residues are mixed with water at L/S 1-7 l/kg. Ammonium citrate is added as desorption agent. The suspension is stirred in order to enhance release to solution. An electrical potential is applied to the suspension to facilitate separation of ions. Ion exchange membranes separate the suspension from the electrodes. Metal cations are collected at the cathode while anions are collected at the anode. Achieved environmental benefits Removal of metal content in residues. Cross-media effects Extracted metals may be reutilized after refinement. Operational information None available. Current scale of implementation X Lab X Bench X Pilot Full Commercial Applicability of technique The process may be applied on all residues. Economics Driving force of implementation Metal recovery. References & examples The technique is a well known process for separation of elements in solutions (e.g. H2 and O2 from water), and has in this setup been tested on several soils and ashes. Main public reports Pedersen et al. (2003), Ottosen et al. (2003)

Inputs
Electricity Water Reagents

Units
kWh m3 kg

Per ton of residue treated


? ? ?

Outputs
Wastewater Treated residue Residue leachate

Units
m kg
3

Per ton of residue treated


? ? ?

Watech
Manufacturer/developer Contact Process type Technical description RGS90 Watech AS Erik Rasmussen, RGS90, Denmark Acid extraction + pyrolysis The process involves co-treatment of other waste fractions (PVC, car shredder waste, WEEE) in several process steps. First residues are mixed with waste acids to extract metals and salts. The extracted residues are then transferred to a reactor together with the other waste fractions for pyrolysis. Outputs from this step are: coke, gases, acid solution, and oil/condensate. Non-soluble residue particles are most likely primarily contained in the coke, which is further washed and used as energy input to the process (i.e. decreasing the organic content). The remaining ash then constitutes the "treated residue". Achieved environmental benefits Improvement of residue leaching properties, recovery of salts, destruction of POP's and potentially utilization of the treated product. Cross-media effects Use of car shredder waste and plastics as energy supply in the process minimizes the use of other fuels (energy recovery is also applied). Several secondary products are produced: brines, metal products, ash. Operational information Not available. Current scale of implementation X Lab Bench X Pilot Full Commercial Applicability of technique The process can be applied on all APC residues, but cannot be performed solely on residues. Economics Driving force of implementation Suitability of process to handle residues, and possibilities of utilization of treated products. References & examples Tested with APC residues in lab scale. Test runs in pilot scale are expected completed in 2005. Main public reports

Inputs
Electricity PVC Shredder waste WEEE Waste acid (5 % HCl) Lime Chemicals/detergents Diesel

Units
kWh kg kg kg kg kg kg L

Per ton of residue treated


137 174 207 77 ~1000 29 0.02 0.7

Outputs
Oil/condensate Cl Hg Pb Dioxin Heat Ca-product Cl Sulfate Cd

Units
kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg ng-TEQ/g MJ kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg

Per ton of residue treated


118 80 < 0.0002 < 0.04 0.003 2820 472 492,000 300 < 0.05

Cr Cu Pb Zn K-product Cl Cd Cr Cu Pb Zn Na-product Cl Cd Cr Cu Pb Zn Metal product Cd Cr Cu Pb Zn Ash Sulfate Cd Cr Cu Pb Zn Metals phases Flue gas CO2 HCl SO2 NOx Dioxin

mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg kg Nm3 mg/Nm3 mg/Nm3 mg/Nm3 mg/Nm3 ng-TEQ/M3

< 0.05 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.05 36 486,000 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.05 43 600,000 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.05 139 250 400 6000 30,000 50,000 227 23,000 30 200 1000 2500 10,000 23 3028 204914 0.5 1 0.02 0.08

Appendix B

LCA-screening of residue management: An example


B.1 Introduction

Systematic evaluations of environmental aspects of APC residue management, such as life-cycle assessments, are very limited although a few examples exists (e.g. Fruergaard and Astrup, 2007). It should be realized that although life-cycle aspects are included in an environmental assessment, such an assessment may not necessarily be characterized as a full LCA (for further details see Wenzel et al. 1997; ISO 14040, 1997). A few issues should be realized with respect to LCA: LCA is an analytical tool used for decision support, it is not a decision making tool The result of an LCA is highly dependent on system boundaries, assumptions, assessment criteria, time horizons, data quality, etc Several methodologies exist for performing LCA It is beyond the scope of this document to provide a detailed account of an LCA on residue management, however the main aspects related to such an LCA is introduced here. On this basis readers are encouraged to seek further information. Please note that LCA on waste management in general (e.g. municipal solid waste, including waste incineration) is relatively well investigated. An LCA includes the following main steps (for further details see ISO 14040, 1997): Goal and scope denition. Denition of the functional unit, system boundaries, assessment criteria, methods for accounting indirect and avoided processes and activities. Inventory analysis. Data collection and preparation of an inventory of inputs and outputs for the involved processes. Assessment of data quality. Impact assessment. Four sub-steps: selection of impact categories to assess (e.g. global warming, acidication, etc.), characterization (e.g. quantication of an emissions contribution to a specic impact category), normalization (e.g. normalization of the results to a common unit such as average impacts related

B-1

to one person, a person equivalent), and nally weighting (e.g. weighting of the results according to the assessment goals, society or political interests, etc.). Interpretation. Including sensitivity analysis for example with respect to system boundaries, assumptions, data, etc. The following sections provides an example of an LCA-screening of management of Danish APC residues carried out by Fruergaard and Astrup (2007). It should be strongly emphasized that this LCA-screening is based on generalized data rather than (measured) data referring to specic and concrete cases. The main purpose including this LCA-screening is to provide an example of how this can be done. This means that the results discussed in the following should be viewed as what they are: general guidelines and indications.

B.2
B.2.1

Results and discussion


Goal and scope

This LCA-screening is based on Danish requirements and conditions. The overall aim is to evaluate various potential management alternatives for Danish residues. The following sections provides examples of such management alternatives only, and should not be viewed as nal decisions on behalf of the Danish incinerators. The functional unit of the LCA-screening is treatment and nal disposal of one ton of APC residue, including secondary and avoided processes. The time horizon is 100 years. The following environmental impact categories are assessed: Global Warming Acidication Nutrient Enrichment Photochemical Ozone Formation Stratospheric Ozone Depletion Ecotoxicity (in Water and Soil) Human Toxicity (via Air, Water and Soil) These impact categories represent a range of environmental aspects generally considered to be important. Further details can be found in Wenzel et al. (1997).

B.2.2

Assumptions

To carry out a full LCA, a range of assumptions/decisions about system boundaries has to be made: processes and activities to include/exclude, energy supply technologies, allocation of impacts to by-products, etc. This is beyond the scope of this text to discuss these aspects, however the importance of the assumptions should be realized. Another likewise as important aspect is that it is not practically possible to nd high-quality quantitative data for all involved processes, including indirect processes. An LCA will therefore always to some extent be based on third-party

B-2

data for which uncertainties and data quality are not reported. Therefore: better data, better results. A number of general assumptions is needed in order to carry out this LCAscreening, for example but not excluding: type, design, and operation of the landlls, transportation type, distances and load, origin of electricity used, handling of leachate, etc. These assumptions should be valid for the scenarios in question. In this LCA-screening, choices reect Danish conditions and are the same for all the discussed management alternatives: landlls fulll EU regulation for hazardous waste, leachate is collected and treated within the active period, transportation is assumed to be either by truck or ships, for further details please refer to Fruergaard and Astrup (2007). A number of specic assumptions relevant only for individual management alternatives are also needed. Examples are: avoided handling and disposal of co-treated waste materials, handling of waste water generated during treatment of residues, etc. In all cases these assumptions illustrate that relatively detailed information about treatment and handling of the residues has to be available in order to properly perform an LCA. Please note that such detailed data has not been available to the extent needed for this specic LCA. Please observe that all such data has not been available for the LCA-screening carried out in this appendix.

B.2.3

Management alternatives and inventory analysis

In this LCA-screening, ve dierent treatment and management alternatives are evaluated: 1. No treatment (Denmark): Transportation of untreated residues to a landll in Denmark by truck (100 km), leachate collection and treatment included. 2. Disposal at Langya (Norway): Transport to Norway by truck (300 km) and bulk carrier (300 km). Neutralization of waste acid and substitution of virgin lime from quarry, waste water treatment and discharge from the facility included. No leaching. 3. Disposal in salt mines (Germany): Transport to Germany by truck (600 km). Mixing with additives and other waste materials, pumping to mine. No leaching. 4. Ferrox treatment (Denmark): Stabilization by the Ferrox treatment process and subsequent landlling in Denmark, transportation by truck (100 km), leachate collection and treatment included. 5. Asphalt production (Denmark): Substitution of limestone as ller material in asphalt production, similar to the practice in The Netherlands, transportation by truck (100 km). No leaching. The associated data inventories (i.e. the data describing the individual alternatives above) can be found in Appendix A. As can be realized from the technology data in the appendix, the information level varies (which may also be realized from Table 7.1 in this report) to a great extent: Disposal in Norway and Germany (Alternatives 2 and 3) and asphalt production (Alternative 5) are based on data provided by the contractors and the literature, Ferrox treatment (Alternative 4) are based

B-3

on a feasibility study on a full scale plant in Denmark, and the reference scenario (Alternative 1: landlling in Denmark) is based on typical data for Danish landlls in current operation. It should be realized that these data are approximate only and that the results presented here should serve as an example. The data presented in Appendix A are of the best possible quality currently available, however in a real application the contractors should be allowed to update the data.

B.2.4

Impact assessment

The results of the LCA-screening are normalized with respect to the impacts from an average person, i.e. given in person equivalents (PE) where 1 PE represents the annual impacts from an average person in a given area. For Global Warming and Stratospheric Ozone Depletion the scale is global, for all other categories except Stored Ecotoxicity the results apply to Europe. Positive values correspond to an environmental load, whereas negative values represent a saving. The gures B.1B.4 therefore shows environmental loads or savings relative to the average load from one person per year according to the various impact categories evaluated. The actual values plotted in the gures are referred to as impact potentials, i.e. potential impacts in a specic category such as Global Warming. Figure B.1 and B.2 show normalized impact potentials for non-toxicity impact categories. In gure B.2 transport impacts are excluded. Overall from Figure B.1 it appears that transport to Germany and disposal in salt mines (Alternative 3) has the highest impact while utilization in asphalt production in Denmark (Alternative 5) has the lowest impact in the non-toxicity categories. From the scale it should, however, be realized that the impacts overall correspond to less than 2 % of the impacts from an average person, and that the dierences between Alternatives 24 in practical applications are minimal. Comparing with Figure B.2 it can be realized that most of the impacts in alternative 24 are caused by the transportation included in these scenarios. The remaining impacts in Figure B.1 and B.2 are primarily related to energy consumption in the processes. This corresponds well with the fact that Alternative 1 does not include treatment of the residues, only landlling. Alternative 5 appears to be a net benet (i.e. negative values), this is however mainly because no data on energy consumption for residue handling in this process has been found and therefore not included in the modeling. As such, the result for Alternaive 5 may likely change if better data can be found which clearly illustrates the importance of obtaining a detailed description of the processes involved. This was, however, not possible in this case. Figure B.3 and B.4 show normalized impact potentials for the toxicity categories. In gure B.4 transport impacts are excluded. Compared with Figures B.1 and B.2, quite a dierent result can be seen here. Now the alternatives with no treatment (Alternative 1) and the Ferrox treatment (Alternative 4) show the highest impacts. This is primarily related to the leaching after landlling of the residues as well as wastewater in case of the Ferrox process. The fact that the Ferrox treatment actually performs worse than no treatment is caused by the fact that the residues had high leaching of molybdenum (Mo). This may not be an issue in a real scale application, and illustrates that focus should be paid to leaching of this element. Comparing Figure B.3 and B.4 it may be realized that transport only has small eects on the toxicity categories, mainly in the case of Alternatives 2 and 3 which include the longest transportation distances. Overall, the toxicity impacts for Alternatives 2,

B-4

No treatment (alt 1) Limestone quarry (alt 2) Salt mine (alt 3) Ferrox (alt 4) Asphalt (alt 5) -0.004 0 0.004 0.008 PE/tonne 0.012 0.016

Global Warming Acidification Nutrient Enrichment Photochemical Ozone Formation (low NOx) Stratospheric Ozone Depletion

Figure B.1: Normalized environmental impact potentials per tonne of residue for the non-toxicity categories during the rst 100 years, including transportation (Fruergaard and Astrup, 2007).

No treatment (alt 1) Limestone quarry (alt 2) Salt mine (alt 3) Ferrox (alt 4) Asphalt (alt 5) -0.004 0 0.004 0.008 PE/tonne Global Warming Acidification Nutrient Enrichment Photochemical Ozone Formation (low NOx) Stratospheric Ozone Depletion 0.012 0.016

Figure B.2: Normalized environmental impact potentials per tonne of residue for the non-toxicity categories during the rst 100 years, excluding transportation (Fruergaard and Astrup, 2007).

B-5

No treatment (alt 1) Limestone quarry (alt 2) Salt mine (alt 3) Ferrox (alt 4) Asphalt (alt 5) -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30

PE/tonne Ecotoxicity in Water Human Toxicity via Air Human Toxicity via Soil Ecotoxicity in Soil Human Toxicity via Water

Figure B.3: Normalized environmental impact potentials per tonne of residue for the toxicity categories during the rst 100 years, including transportation (Fruergaard and Astrup 2007). 3, and 5 are similar, while the impacts for Alternatives 1 and 4 appear somewhat higher. It should be noted that contaminants remaining in the residues (or any other products produced during residue treatment and subsequently landlled) after the time horizon of the LCA (i.e. in this case 100 years) are often summarized and recalculated into a potential impact (often termed stored toxicity). This is not included here for simplicity reasons, but a specic assessment of the potential for future releases of contaminants in the evaluated scenarios after the 100 years time horizon should always be carried out before nal conclusions are reached. A full LCA also includes a discussion of consumptions of resources (e.g. consumption of metals). This is not included here for the sake of simplicity.

B.3

General conclusions

The LCA-screening discussed above is based on an incomplete dataset and should be viewed as preliminary results only. As such, it is not concluded which of the alternatives are the best on an absolute scale. A few general conclusions, however, can be made: In cases when treatment and nal disposal are not associated with major emissions or energy consumptions, then transportation will often represent the main environmental load (e.g. in case of disposal of residues in German mines or in Norway, Alternative 2 and 3) The main impacts related to chemical stabilization solutions like Ferrox treatment are often caused by the treatment process itself and the leaching after

B-6

No treatment (alt 1) Limestone quarry (alt 2) Salt mine (alt 3) Ferrox (alt 4) Asphalt (alt 5) -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30

PE/tonne Ecotoxicity in Water Human Toxicity via Air Human Toxicity via Soil Ecotoxicity in Soil Human Toxicity via Water

Figure B.4: Normalized environmental impact potentials per tonne of residue for the toxicity categories during the rst 100 years, excluding transportation (Fruergaard and Astrup 2007). landlling of the residues. Specic contaminants may need to be addressed in order to lower the impacts further If data are not available, and therefore cannot be included in an LCA, the associated impacts will not appear in the results (as was the case with asphalt production in Alternative 5). This may improve the results for a particular alternative and give rise to wrong conclusions. As such, it is very important to have a clear understanding of the data and processes which are evaluated Although a detailed sensitivity analysis is not included here for simplicity reasons, the general conclusions mentioned above are still valid although reasonable uncertainties in the supplied data are assumed. However, it should be realized thatas previously mentionedthe assessment should be localized in order to account for appropriate types of energy production, wastewater treatment and discharge, landll operation, etc. These aspects (among others) may potentially alter conclusions if one management solution includes signicant use of such activities while other solutions do not. It shouldagainbe emphasized that this LCA-screening is based on general data and a range of assumptions have been made. If an LCA should be used to support specic decision regarding residue management, specic data should be acquired and critically reviewed with respect to quality and uncertainty.

B.4

References

Fruergaard T, Astrup T (2007): Life cycle assessment of management of APC residues from waste incineration. Proceedings Sardinia 2007, Eleventh In-

B-7

ternational Waste Management and Landll Symposium, Italy, 15 October 2007. ISO 14040 (1997): Environmental management - Life-cycle assessment - Principles and framework, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland. Wenzel H, Hauschild M, Alting L (1997): Environmental assessment of products. Volume 1: Methodology, tools and case studies in product development. Chapman & Hall, London, England.

B-8

This report is produced by ISWA's Working Group on Thermal Treatment of Waste. The work has been carried out by a subgroup on Air-Pollution-Control (APC) residues from Waste-to-Energy (W-t-E) Plants. Associate Professor Thomas Astrup from Department of Environmental Engineering,Technical University of Denmark, has produced the report with inputs from the subgroup. This report is the second edition published October 2008

ISWA General Secretariat The International Solid Waste Association Vesterbrogade 74, 3rd oor DK-1620 Copenhagen V Denmark Phone: +45 3296 1588 Fax: +45 3296 1584 e-mail: iswa@iswa.dk Website: www.iswa.org