Waste Management & Research http://wmr.sagepub.

com/

Development of sustainable waste management toward zero landfill waste for the petrochemical
industry in Thailand using a comprehensive 3R methodology: A case study
Parnuwat Usapein and Orathai Chavalparit
Waste Manag Res 2014 32: 509 originally published online 13 May 2014
DOI: 10.1177/0734242X14533604

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://wmr.sagepub.com/content/32/6/509

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

International Solid Waste Association

Additional services and information for Waste Management & Research can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://wmr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://wmr.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://wmr.sagepub.com/content/32/6/509.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Jun 18, 2014

OnlineFirst Version of Record - May 16, 2014

OnlineFirst Version of Record - May 13, 2014

What is This?

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on July 11, 2014
533604
research-article2014
WMR0010.1177/0734242X14533604Waste Management & ResearchUsapein and Chavalparit

Original article

Waste Management & Research

Development of sustainable waste

2014, Vol. 32(6) 509­–518
© The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
management toward zero landfill sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0734242X14533604

waste for the petrochemical industry wmr.sagepub.com

in Thailand using a comprehensive

3R methodology: A case study

Parnuwat Usapein1,2 and Orathai Chavalparit2,3

Abstract
Sustainable waste management was introduced more than ten years ago, but it has not yet been applied to the Thai petrochemical
industry. Therefore, under the philosophy of sustainable waste management, this research aims to apply the reduce, reuse, and recycle
(3R) concept at the petrochemical factory level to achieve a more sustainable industrial solid waste management system. Three olefin
plants in Thailand were surveyed for the case study. The sources and types of waste and existing waste management options were
identified. The results indicate that there are four sources of waste generation: (1) production, (2) maintenance, (3) waste treatment,
and (4) waste packaging, which correspond to 45.18%, 36.71%, 9.73%, and 8.37% of the waste generated, respectively. From the
survey, 59 different types of industrial wastes were generated from the different factory activities. The proposed 3R options could
reduce the amount of landfill waste to 79.01% of the amount produced during the survey period; this reduction would occur over a
period of 2 years and would result in reduced disposal costs and reduced consumption of natural resources. This study could be used
as an example of an improved waste management system in the petrochemical industry.

Keywords
3R concept, industrial wastes, landfill waste, olefin plant, petrochemical wastes, waste management

Introduction
The ongoing effort to improve the quality of life has resulted in
the deposition of considerable waste into the environment.
Earth’s natural resources are being depleted, resulting in environ-
mental damage; we have been aware of this problem for a long
time. Over the last few decades, trends in waste management and
environmental protection have focused on the development of
cleaner production methods and industrial ecology to reduce
resource depletion as well as the application of mechanisms
found in natural ecosystems to industrial systems (Zamorano
et al., 2011). A new method for addressing waste management
problems was recently developed (Kollikkathara et al., 2009). A
variety of waste management concepts have been introduced in
various countries, including the circular economy in China, zero
waste in Australia, and industrial symbiosis in Europe (Ma et al.,
2014; Simboli et al., 2014; Zaman, 2014a). Each approach has
first step that the reuse of waste products is considered. In many
research projects, the 3R concept has been combined with other
waste management principles (such as a circular economy) for
reusing waste as a new resource, reducing the pollution of dis-
posal waste, and optimising the utilisation of natural resources
with the minimum environmental burden (Wu et al., 2014;
Zaman, 2014b).
Tools that can be applied at the enterprise level are required to
implement a sustainable waste management strategy. The tools
must be easy for the people responsible for waste management at
the factory to understand. The 3R principle, also known as the
1InternationalPostgraduate Program in Environmental Management,
Graduate School, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand
2Center of Excellence on Hazardous Substance Management (HSM),

the same goal, i.e. to convert waste at one point in the system into Bangkok, Thailand
3Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,
resources at another point; this goal emphasises the product life-
Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand
cycle as a closed-loop system of resources and energy. The
reduce, reuse, and recycle (3R) concept emphasises the closed- Corresponding author:
loop concept through reusing and recycling both resources and Orathai Chavalparit, Department of Environmental Engineering,
Faculty of Engineering, Chulalongkorn University, Phayathai Road,
energy. However, before considering recycling, the 3R concept Patumwan, Bangkok 10330, Thailand.
focuses on the reduction of waste at the source. It is only after this Email: orathai.c@chula.ac.th

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on July 11, 2014
510 Waste Management & Research 32(6)
hierarchy of waste management, is an important concept for sus-
tainable development (Taylor, 2012). It is an effective tool to
implement in a microstructure (single object) to manage increas-
ing quantities of waste. This concept is aimed at reducing the
waste to ‘zero waste’ and/or ‘zero landfilling’. In recent years, 3R
has received attention from many countries, particularly in Asia,
including, Japan, China, the Republic of Korea, and Vietnam
(Sakai et al., 2011).
As a member of the United Nations, Thailand has been asked
to engage in sustainable development, as described in Agenda 21.
The Ministry of Industry has established the Eco-Industries pol-
icy to promote and support the balancing of environmental con-
servation and economic growth. The result is expected to allow
industry and the community to coexist; in addition, this policy
could promote and support a low-carbon society. Thus, the 3R
principle has been used as a tool to improve the industrial waste
management system in Thailand.
Petrochemical waste is difficult to manage because of the
presence of different types of wastes and pollutants (Abduli et al.,
2006; Mokhtarani, 2006). Landfill is a conventional method for
the disposal of petrochemical wastes in Thailand. Unfortunately,
landfill sites are often not well designed, resulting in an increase
in the environmental burden and public health concerns (Chaya
and Gheewala, 2007; Menikpura et al., 2012). Therefore, it is
important to recognise that landfill wastes should be revived and
diverted into the recycling stream. The efficiency of sustainable
waste management has been demonstrated through many case
studies (Dong et al., 2013; Zamorano et al., 2011). However, pre-
vious studies did not focus on the petrochemical industry.
This research project aimed to study how the 3R options could
improve industrial-waste management in the Thai petrochemical
industry with the ultimate goal of producing zero landfill waste.
The 3R options were proposed and implemented at petrochemi-
cal plants. After the 3R options were applied to these plants, the
benefits in terms of reduced cost, natural resource depletion, and
greenhouse gas emissions were evaluated.
Materials and methods
The 3R approach and methodology
Data collection.  The first survey was conducted in 2010. The
waste storage facilities and waste treatment systems at the plants
were surveyed. The data obtained included the waste sources,
types of waste, amounts of waste, and existing waste manage-
ment practices; the data were collected in a spreadsheet. After the
survey was completed, a meeting was conducted between the
research team and the person responsible for waste management
at the plants. Then, the research team analysed the data with
respect to the following topics.
•• Waste classification: The source of waste generation was
used to identify waste types.
•• Existing waste management strategies: Data on existing
waste management strategies were collected and analysed.
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on July 11, 2014
Proposing the 3R options.  The data collected in 2010 were
used as a baseline and as guidelines to select appropriate mea-
sures for minimising environmental impacts. Each proposed
option was described and compared. The details of each step
are as follows.
Step 1: Introduction to the 3R practice methodology.  The first
step was to define the problem statement and establish the cor-
responding specifications for the people responsible for solid
waste management at the plant under consideration. In this study,
the problem statements were as follows: (1) the olefin plant could
develop a sustainable industrial solid waste management system,
and (2) the 3R strategy could be applied to the olefin plant to
achieve zero landfill waste.
Step 2: Creation of a waste inventory. In this step, a waste
inventory was created. Information on the type of waste, quan-
tity of waste, and existing waste management strategies was
gathered.
Step 3: Proposing feasible 3R alternatives for waste man-
agement.  This step used the data that were collected in Step 2.
In some cases, it was necessary to sample the waste and to
analyse its composition. The 3R procedures were prioritised to
identify those best suited for the site. This step included com-
munication with stakeholders (i.e. the Authority of Industrial
Waste Management Bureau, waste processors, and villagers)
because some measures required permission from the authori-
ties. Therefore, it was necessary to contact the appropriate state
official before initiating the alternative waste management
strategies.
•• Environmental impact analysis: The purpose of this step is
to evaluate the potential environmental impact of the 3R
options. The benefit of reducing the use of natural resources
was analysed for each 3R option. The potential for raw
material and energy substitutions was based on the chemi-
cal characteristics of the waste products. The emission fac-
tors were obtained using data from the most recent
ECO-invent database.
•• Economic analysis: The economic analysis was based on the
revenue streams and the costs that were avoided through the
reduction of waste generated and the corresponding reduction
in waste management costs.
Step 4: Preparation of the measures and plan to implement
the options. The appropriate 3R options were selected by the
researcher, environmental engineer, and waste manager. An
action plan for the implementation of the selected 3R option was
created, and the plan was reviewed every 3 months by the mem-
bers of the 3R project.
Step 5: Monitoring the implementation of the 3R options at
the olefin plant.  After the 3R options were selected, the out-
comes were monitored for 24 months and the results were
summarised.
Usapein and Chavalparit 511

Table 1.  List of industrial wastes identified in the olefin factory.

No. Identified waste item Waste types Waste categories

1 Activated carbon Hazardous Production process
2 Air filter Hazardous Packaging and equipment
3 Alumina ball Hazardous Production process
4 Bio-sludge Non-hazardous Waste treatment system
5 Caustic and yellow oil Hazardous Production process
6 Chemical cleaning waste Hazardous Maintenance programme
8 Coke Hazardous Production process
9 Contaminated container Hazardous Packaging and equipment
10 Copper slag Hazardous Maintenance programme
11 Dimethyl disulphide Hazardous Production process
12 Dry cell battery Hazardous Packaging and equipment
13 Insulation Hazardous Packaging and equipment
14 Lube oil Hazardous Maintenance programme
15 Metal contaminated chemical substance Hazardous Packaging and equipment
16 Molecular sieve Hazardous Production process
17 Monoethanolamine (MEA) mixed with water Hazardous Maintenance programme
18 Contaminated garbage Hazardous Packaging and equipment
20 Oil filter Hazardous Packaging and equipment
21 Oily sludge Hazardous Waste treatment system
23 Oily wastewater Hazardous Waste treatment system
24 Oligomer Hazardous Production process
26 Polymer and waste oil Hazardous Production process
27 Refractory brick Hazardous Packaging and equipment
29 Sludge Hazardous Waste treatment system
30 Spent catalyst Hazardous Production process
31 Spent caustic Hazardous Production process
33 Tar (pH 5) Hazardous Production process
34 Used oil Hazardous Maintenance programme
36 Waste oil Hazardous Maintenance programme
38 Wastewater Hazardous Waste treatment system
41 Yellow oil Hazardous Production process
42 Metal scrap Non-hazardous Packaging and equipment
43 Wood debris Non-hazardous Packaging and equipment
44 Paper scrap Non-hazardous Packaging and equipment
47 Plastic scrap Non-hazardous Packaging and equipment
48 Stainless scrap Non-hazardous Packaging and equipment
51 Aluminium scrap Non-hazardous Packaging and equipment
52 Spent battery Hazardous Packaging and equipment
54 Drum metal (200 l) Hazardous Packaging and equipment
55 Sand contaminated with oil and chemical Hazardous Maintenance programme
substances
59 Fluorescent tube Hazardous Packaging and equipment

Case study Results and discussion

In this study, three olefin plants were selected as case studies for
improving waste management systems. All three plants are located
in the Map Ta Phut Industrial Estate (MTPIE) of Rayong Province
in eastern Thailand. The plants employ a steam cracking process
with a total capacity of 2,888,000 tonnes per year. This capacity is
approximately 74.68% of the total olefin production in Thailand.
Ethane and naphtha are the main components of the feedstock that
is used to produce ethylene and propylene. These products from the
plants are sold as feedstock to high density polyethylene (HDPE),
low density polyethylene (LDPE), linear low density polyethylene
(LLDPE), and ethylene oxide/ethylene glycol (EO/EG) factories.
Waste sources and waste generation
The list of industrial waste types generated by the plants is pre-
sented in Table 1. A total of 59 different types of industrial waste
were generated from the different activities of the factory, such as
the production process, the maintenance programme, packaging
and equipment, and the waste treatment system. Some wastes
(e.g. bio-sludge, metal scrap, paper scrap, wood debris, plastic
scrap, aluminium scrap, and stainless scrap) were determined to
be non-hazardous, and the remaining types were classified as
hazardous wastes. Approximately 91% of the total waste gener-
ated was classified as hazardous waste.

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on July 11, 2014
512 Waste Management & Research 32(6)

Figure 1.  Waste types from each factory activity in the olefin plants under consideration. (a) Production process waste; (b)
maintenance waste; (c) packaging and equipment waste.

Production processes and maintenance programme activities
are the main sources of waste generation; these activities account
for up to 45.18% and 36.71% of the total waste, respectively, fol-
lowed by the waste treatment system (9.73%) and packaging
(8.37%). The data in Figure 1 indicate the types of waste gener-
ated by each waste source activity. As shown in Figure 1(a), most
of the waste produced during the production processes consists
of oily wastewater and caustic and yellow oil. These wastes can
be used as fuel for heating because they contain oil and chemical
substances.
Figure 1(b) presents ten types of maintenance wastes. Wastes
in this category are generated when the petrochemical plant must
be cleaned. Special chemical solutions are used to remove pollut-
ants (e.g. heavy oils and polymer deposits) from the machines;
after the pollutants are removed, the spent special chemical solu-
tions become waste (called chemical cleaning wastes, used oil, or
wash oil). These waste types can be burned for energy recovery
or used in fuel blending. In addition, metal scraps are generated
during the blast cleaning of steel or concrete surfaces.
Figure 1(c) presents the packaging and equipment wastes that
are generated when equipment breaks down. Accidental leaks are
the main cause of maintenance programme waste generation.
Most of these wastes are mainly composed of inorganic sub-
stances; thus, they are unavailable for energy recovery. Disposal
of these wastes in landfills is a common method owing to its low
cost and simplicity.
From a waste management perspective, various types of
wastes are more difficult to dispose of than a single waste type.
Therefore, we suggest that petrochemical wastes be separated at
the source before selecting the most suitable waste management
option for each waste type. In addition, estimating the amount of
waste generated poses another waste management challenge in
petrochemical factories. The quantities of maintenance wastes
and packaging and equipment wastes are difficult to estimate

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on July 11, 2014
Usapein and Chavalparit 513
Figure 2.  Quantified existing waste material flows of industrial wastes in the plants under consideration (waste data from
2011).
annually because they are not generated in proportion to the pro-
duction process and the quantity of raw materials used. We sent a
questionnaire to the waste manager in each factory to estimate
the quantity of landfill waste generated in 2011. The results indi-
cated that all of the waste managers underestimated the quantity
of landfill waste produced at their factories.
To increase the accuracy of waste generation prediction, we
suggest that all waste generators, i.e. maintenance and production
departments, cooperate in estimating the waste that will be gener-
ated in a given year. Therefore, in large organisations, all depart-
ments that generate waste, and not only the environmental
department, should participate in waste management operations.
When source reduction is the first priority of waste management,
each waste generator in the organisation should be aware of
waste generation in the factory, and the environmental depart-
ment should be responsible for selecting the most environmen-
tally friendly waste disposal method.
From the data collected in 2010, the baseline level of indus-
trial waste recycling was relatively high (see Figure 2).
Approximately 88% of the total waste generated was properly
managed. Three main waste management options were identi-
fied: fuel substitution (44%), fuel blending (36%), and landfill
(7%). Although the plants have a high potential for recycling
options, the landfill option is still part of their waste management
strategy. For these plants, landfill waste consists of both organic
and inorganic material. Inorganic wastes include insulation,
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on July 11, 2014
copper slag, contaminated containers, contaminated metal scrap,
molecular sieves, and air filters. Organic wastes include bio-
sludge, sludge, wood debris, and plastic scraps.
To improve the factories’ waste management systems, we
focused on the type of waste that was disposed of in landfills. In
Thailand, landfills can be divided into two types: sanitary land-
fills and secure landfills. Sanitary landfills are reserved for non-
hazardous waste, and secure landfills are reserved for hazardous
waste.
Proposed 3R options
Options for improving the industrial waste management system
are presented in Figure 3.
Bio-sludge and sludge from the activated sludge wastewater
treatment system.  Our surveys indicated that sludge from acti-
vated sludge wastewater treatment systems can be divided into
two types: bio-sludge and sludge. Bio-sludge refers to sludge
from an activated sludge wastewater treatment system and is
classified as non-hazardous waste. Sludge refers to sludge from
an activated sludge wastewater treatment system and is classified
as hazardous waste. Options for reducing, reusing and recycling
bio-sludge and sludge are described here.
1. On-site reduction: Hydrophilic bio-sludge is difficult to
dewater. Sludge volumes can be reduced by (a) improving the
514 Waste Management & Research 32(6)
Waste management approaches of Olefin factory
Reduction
Increase the efficiency of the Sort the types of insulators to
dewatering unit to reduce sludge isolate contaminated insulators
humidity before disposal and non-contaminated insulators
from each other
Burn molecular sieves as a co-material
Separate contaminated
in a cement kiln
container waste at the source
Use proper container sizes to Compost bio-sludge as co-composting
reduce container waste material for fertiliser production
Figure 3.  Proposed 3R options for improving waste management at the olefin factories.
bio-sludge conditioning process or (b) drying the bio-sludge
under sunlight prior to disposal (Wittmaier et al., 2009). The
volume of bio-sludge can be reduced at the source by using
various chemical conditioners to increase the effectiveness of
the dewatering operations (Djedidi et al., 2009). This process
can reduce the moisture content of the bio-sludge, yielding a
more compact form before the sludge is disposed of at a land-
fill site.
2. Off-site recycling/recovery
•• Recycle bio-sludge as co-composting material for fertiliser
production: Bio-sludge can be used as a raw material for pro-
ducing fertiliser or soil conditioners. The methodology for
composting bio-sludge as a co-material to produce fertiliser
was determined using data from the site visit at Micro Biotec
Company Ltd in Rayong Province, Thailand. Before imple-
menting this option, it is necessary to determine the charac-
teristics of the bio-sludge according to the requirements of
the Department of Agriculture, Thailand (Ministry of
Agricutural Cooperatives Thailand (MAC), 2005). The char-
acteristics of the bio-sludge at the olefin plants are provided
in Table 2. The properties of the bio-sludge are similar to the
standard requirements for organic matter, the germination
index, and total nitrogen. Whereas the bio-sludge has a ger-
mination index of 62%, the olefin II sludge has a germination
index of 5%. Therefore, the bio-sludge can be composted by
mixing it with sawdust and microbial inoculums. The ferti-
liser production yield is 0.2 tonne of fertiliser per tonne of
sludge.
•• Burn sludge as a co-material in a cement kiln: Sludge, classi-
fied as a hazardous waste, cannot be composted to produce
fertiliser. Both bio-sludge and sludge can be burned as a co-
material in cement kilns. Sludge can be burned to recover
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on July 11, 2014
Reuse/Recycling
Reuse and recycle insulation waste
Burn sludge as a co-material in a
cement kiln
Burn copper slag as a co-material in
a cement kiln
energy, and the sludge residues can be used as replacement
materials in cement clinkers (Monte et al., 2009). From the
analysis, the heating value of sludge is 18,513 MJ tonne-1.
Given the quantity of sludge that was generated in 2011 (185
tonnes), it is estimated that the maximum amount of energy
that can be recovered by burning the sludge is approximately
342,491 MJ year-1.
Insulation waste.  Moisture, oil, and other chemical substances
often contaminate insulation when they are not stored properly.
Our survey indicated that insulation wastes were not stored sepa-
rately by type and that contaminated insulation waste was not
stored separately from non-contaminated insulation waste. Under
these conditions, the entire volume of insulation wastes had to be
disposed of in a secure landfill as hazardous waste. To improve
the waste management system with respect to insulation wastes,
3R options were proposed, beginning with waste reduction at the
source. Details are provided here.
1. On-site reduction: Adequate planning and management
before insulation demolition can reduce waste generation.
The separation of insulation wastes by insulation type and the
reuse of uncontaminated insulation on site are best practices
for waste management. In this study, a sorting unit was
installed to separate types of insulation waste and to store
reusable insulation carefully to prevent contamination. After
the sorting unit was installed, we found that four types of
insulation were employed in the factory: rock wool (51.73%),
refractory brick (39.31%), foam glass (7.23%), and polyure-
thane foam (1.73%).
2. Off-site recycling/recovery: Recycling/recovery in a cement
kiln: Some types of insulation waste, e.g. polyurethane and
refractory brick, can be diverted from landfills and burned as
Usapein and Chavalparit 515

Table 2.  Sludge characteristics at the olefin plant.

No. Characteristics Olefin I (bio-sludge) Olefin II (sludge) Requirement

1 Sieve size (12.5 × 12.5 mm) 90.75% 87.67% Not more than 12.5 × 12.5
mm
2 Moisture content at 75 °C, 15.45% 22.8% Not more than 35% by weight
20 h (%)
3 Gravel (%) Not Detected Not Detected Larger than 5 mm and not
more than 5% by weight
4 Plastic, glass, other metal Not Detected Not Detected Not detected (ND)
5 Organic matter 73.48% 64.71% Not less than 30% by weight
6 Organic carbon 42.62% 37.53%  
7 pH 8.2 7.7 5.5–8.5
8 C/N ratio 8/1 6/1 Not more than 20:1
9 Electrical conductivity (EC) 3.31 1.76 Not more than 6 dS m-1
10 Germination index (GI; %) 62.11% 5.44% More than 80%
11 Total nitrogen (%) 5.3% 6.4% –T  otal N not less than 1.0%
by weight
  Total phosphate (%) 1.8% 3.2% – Total P2O5 not less than 5%
by weight
  Total potash (%) 0.3% 0.4% –T  otal K2O not less than
0.5% by weight
12 Arsenic 6.5 3.4 Not more than 50 mg kg-1
  Cadmium 6.1 0.84 Not more than 5 mg kg-1
  Chromium 190 212.4 Not more than 300 mg kg-1
  Copper 62 103.8 Not more than 500 mg kg-1
  Lead 54.6 904.3 Not more than 500 mg kg-1
  Mercury 13.2 15 Not more than 2 mg kg-1

an alternative fuel and co-material in cement kilns. Refractory
brick can be incinerated to replace raw materials, and polyu-
rethane can be incinerated as a substitute for conventional
energy.
Contaminated containers.  According to the survey data, waste
containers were not classified and separated during the survey
period. All types of contaminated containers were classified as
hazardous waste and were sent to landfills. The following 3R
options are proposed.
1. On-site reduction/reuse.
•• Installing a sorting unit to reduce contaminated containers at
the source.
•• Using larger containers to reduce the amount of packaging
waste.
•• Changing from using liquid chemicals to using powdered chem-
icals to reduce the amount of packaging for transportation.
•• Modifying the packaging structure so that packaging can be
re-used.
•• Creating a large waste container for waste collection to
reduce the use of small containers.
2. Off-site recycling/recovery: After a separation unit is
installed, the options for each container type are as follows.
•• Used metal cans can be sent to a smelter factory; however, a
compressing machine is necessary to reduce the waste vol-
ume before recycling.
•• Plastic containers can be burned in an incinerator for energy
recovery; however, they should be shredded before burning
to increase the contact surface.
Copper slag and molecular sieves
1. Off-site recycling/recovery.
•• Recycling/recovery in cement kiln: Molecular sieves are used
to remove water in the feedstock during olefin production.
The sieves are made from a synthesised zeolite compound,
and they become deactivated after a certain period of time
(Mokhtarani, 2006). Molecular sieves and copper slag are
both inorganic materials; they mainly consist of Al2O3, Fe2O3,
and SiO2. A typical processing clinker uses four basic oxides
for production: calcium oxide, silicon oxide, alumina oxide,
and iron oxide (European Cement Association, 2013).
Therefore, molecular sieves and copper slag waste can be
burned as co-materials in a cement kiln to produce cement
clinker.
Implementation of the selected 3R
options
As shown in Figure 4, the amount of landfill waste that was gen-
erated was similar for the first two years (2010–2011). However,
a large amount of landfill waste was observed during the final
year of monitoring because the olefin plants had performed main-
tenance activities in 2012 that resulted in the generation of addi-
tional waste. The 3R options were introduced to the factories in

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on July 11, 2014
516 Waste Management & Research 32(6)

Figure 4.  Annual waste disposed of at a landfill by the olefin plants.

Table 3.  The environmental impacts of the selected 3R options.

Type of waste Selected option Reduction in Reduction in the Emission factor of Reduction in
landfill waste depletion of natural greenhouse gas greenhouse
(tonnes) resources (tonnes) emissions (tonne CO2 eq/ gas emissions
tonne natural resource) (tonnes CO2 eq)
Sludge Burn sludge as an 386.51 30 tonnes of 2.94 88.06
alternative energy in a bituminous coala
cement kiln
Molecular sieves, Burn inorganic wastes 698.29 333.65 tonnes of 0.0028 0.92
copper slag, as raw materials in a clayb
refractory brick cement kiln
Bio-sludge Co-compost bio-sludge 122.13 24.43 tonnes of 2.6 63.51
to produce fertiliser fertiliserc
aConsidering average solid content at 10%, and using 18,513 MJ per tonne of sludge for calculation.
bTheamount of clay substituted was based on Al2O3 content (132.46 tonnes) in inorganic wastes. The calculation used 0.397 tonne of Al2O3 per
tonne of clay (The Clay Minerals Society, 2013).
cThe fertiliser production yield is 0.2 tonne of fertiliser per tonne of sludge.

January 2011, and the project was monitored for 24 months.
After the 3R options were proposed, three main options were
selected for application: the burning of inorganic wastes as co-
materials in cement kilns, the burning of sludge as an alternative
fuel in cement kilns, and the composting of bio-sludge to produce
fertiliser. In 2012, the implementation of these 3R options
decreased the amount of landfill waste by approximately 79.01%.
Reduction of the environmental impact
and disposal costs
1. Evaluation of the environmental benefits of the selected 3R
options: The changes in the environmental impact are shown
in Table 3. Each option reduces impacts to natural resources
and reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Before the 3R pro-
ject was implemented, the landfill waste listed in Table 3
(approximately 1200 tonnes) resulted in a loss of usable
land and potential harm to the environment. However, after
the 3R options were proposed and implemented, some pet-
rochemical wastes were used either as raw materials or as
alternative energy sources for other factories, thus reducing
the amount of depleted natural resources and greenhouse
gas emissions.
2. Cost comparison of the waste disposal methods: As shown in
Table 4, the cost of waste disposal was estimated during a site
visit to the olefin plant (personal communication, 1 June
2011). The waste disposal cost depends on the characteristics
of the waste products. In case of landfill waste, hazardous
waste tends to have a higher disposal cost than non-hazardous
waste. The total cost of waste disposal was reduced by
453,308 baht/year when industrial waste was diverted from
landfills and disposed of using a more environmentally
friendly method.
Discussion of the proposed 3R options
Wastes from petrochemical factories can be used as raw materials
in the agriculture and cement industries. Based on the analysis of
the industrial waste flow, a model of almost-zero landfill waste
for the petrochemical industry is presented in Figure 5. Figure 5
presents a schematic diagram of optimum waste management for
the olefin production industry that can be used to achieve

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on July 11, 2014
Usapein and Chavalparit 517

Table 4.  The cost saving of the selected 3R options.

Type of waste Selected option Reduction in landfill Cost of disposal

waste (tonnes)

Landfill 3R options Cost savings

  (baht/tonnes) (baht/tonnes) (baht)
Sludge Burn sludge as an 386.51 5581 4584 385,350
alternative energy in a
cement kiln
Molecular sieves, Burn inorganic wastes 698.29 1900 1400 61,065
copper slag, as raw materials in a
refractory brick cement kiln
Bio-sludge Co-compost bio-sludge 122.13 3700 3690 6893
to produce fertiliser

Figure 5.  Schematic diagram for optimum waste management for the olefin production industry.

environmental balance in an industrially complex society.
According to the data collected in 2012, 1639 tonnes of landfill
waste were generated, consisting of 463.19 tonnes of molecular
sieves, 399.37 tonnes of bio-sludge, 386.51 tonnes of sludge,
234.40 tonnes of insulation waste, 116.53 tonnes of copper slag,
and 26.05 tonnes of contaminated containers. To achieve 79%
landfill waste reduction, waste reduction at the source was
applied to the sludge, whose moisture content was reduced with
solar drying. After a sorting unit was installed in the factories, the
reuse option was successfully applied to insulation waste and
contaminated containers. Approximately 3 tonnes of insulation
waste and 7.22 tonnes of contaminated containers were reused in
the factory. Recycling also plays an important role in reducing
landfill waste. Molecular sieves, copper slag, and refractory brick
were used as raw materials in the clinker process. Based on the
calculations, 222.27, 132.46, and 64.38 tonnes of SiO2, Al2O3,
and Fe2O3, respectively, were contained in these wastes. These
minerals can be used to replace a portion of the clay needed in the
clinker process.
In addition, the sludge was used as an alternative energy
source to generate 715,527 MJ of energy. This energy can be
used as a substitute for approximately 30 tonnes of bituminous

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on July 11, 2014
518 Waste Management & Research 32(6)
coal. When using bio-sludge as a co-composting material for fer-
tiliser production, the nutrient contents in the bio-sludge (i.e.
21.17, 7.19, and 1.20 tonnes of N, P, and K, respectively) are
resilient to the environment. Unfortunately, only 122.13 tonnes
of bio-sludge was recycled as fertiliser because of the limited
capacity of fertiliser production in Thailand.
Conclusions
Based on the data obtained, most of the wastes generated by the
selected plants are classified as hazardous wastes. The Thai pet-
rochemical plants considered here exhibit a high level of indus-
trial waste recycling. However, they also dispose of various
waste types, such as bio-sludge, sludge, insulation, copper slag,
molecular sieves, and contaminated containers, in landfills. The
comprehensive 3R methodology was applied to divert landfill
waste to the recycling stream. Various options were introduced to
improve the waste management system. Three main options were
selected, and the implementation of these options reduced the
amount of landfill waste by approximately 79.01%. However,
some types of waste, such as rock wool, are still being disposed
of at landfills. Although a sorting process improved the insulation
waste management system, the insulation wastes that cannot be
reused are still disposed of at landfills because Thailand does not
possess the technology to recycle those types of waste.
The 3R strategy can be used to improve the sustainability of
industrial solid waste management systems by the following
methods.
•• Reducing waste at the source by using a sorting process.
•• Increasing the rate of reuse as a result of waste sorting.
•• Increasing the rate of recycling, which results in reduced nat-
ural resource depletion.
Landfill wastes were reduced by employing the 3R options at
the plant; furthermore, disposal costs and the use of raw natural
resources were reduced. Sustainable procurement and extended
producer responsibility should be introduced to factories to
increase the effectiveness of the 3R methodology and reduce
waste generation at the source.
Acknowledgements
We would like to express our thanks for the data and comments to the
petrochemical factories contributed to this manuscript.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Funding
This study was supported by a grant from the Center of Excellence for
Environmental and Hazardous Waste Management (EHWM),
Chulalongkorn University, Thailand and The 90th Anniversary of
Chulalongkorn University Fund (Ratchadaphiseksomphot Endowment
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on July 11, 2014
Fund) and Center of Excellence on Hazardous Substance Management
(HSM), Chulalongkorn University.
References
Abduli MA, Abbasi M, Nasrabadi T, et al. (2006) Solid waste management in
Tabriz petrochemical complex. Iranian Journal of Environmental Health
Science & Engineering 3: 185–192.
Chaya W and Gheewala SH (2007) Life cycle assessment of MSW-to-energy
schemes in Thailand. Journal of Cleaner Production 15: 1463–1468.
The Clay Minerals Society (CMS) (2013) Source clay physical/chemical
data. Available at: http://www.clays.org/SOURCE%20CLAYS/SCdata.
html (accessed 2 October 2013).
Djedidi Z, Bouda M, Souissi MA, et al. (2009) Metals removal from soil,
fly ash and sewage sludge leachates by precipitation and dewatering
properties of the generated sludge. Journal of Hazardous Materials 172:
1372–1382.
Dong L, Zhang H, Fujita T, et al. (2013) Environmental and economic gains
of industrial symbiosis for Chinese iron/steel industry: Kawasaki’s expe-
rience and practice in Liuzhou and Jinan. Journal of Cleaner Production
59: 226–238.
European Cement Association (ECA) (2013) Cement manufacturing pro-
cess. Available at: http://www.cembureau.be/about-cement/cement-
manufacturing-process (accessed 20 June 2013).
Kollikkathara N, Feng H and Stern E (2009) A purview of waste manage-
ment evolution: special emphasis on USA. Waste Management 29:
974–985.
Ma S-H, Wen Z-G, Chen J-N, et al. (2014) Mode of circular economy in
China’s iron and steel industry: a case study in Wu’an city. Journal of
Cleaner Production 64: 505–512.
Ministry of Agricutural Cooperatives Thailand (MAC) (2005) Thai
Agricultural Standard TAS 9503–2005: Compost. Available at: http://
www.acfs.go.th/standard/download/eng/compost.pdf (accessed 25 May
2013).
Menikpura SN, Gheewala SH and Bonnet S (2012) Framework for life cycle
sustainability assessment of municipal solid waste management systems
with an application to a case study in Thailand. Waste Management &
Research 30: 708–719.
Mokhtarani B (2006) Report: Future industrial solid waste management in
Pars Special Economic Energy Zone (PSEEZ), Iran. Waste Management
& Research 24: 283–288.
Monte MC, Fuente E, Blanco A, et al. (2009) Waste management from pulp
and paper production in the European Union. Waste Management 29:
293–308.
Sakai S, Yoshida H, Hirai Y, et al. (2011) International comparative study
of 3R and waste management policy developments. Journal of Material
Cycles and Waste Management 13: 86–102.
Simboli A, Taddeo R and Morgante A (2014) Analysing the development of
Industrial Symbiosis in a motorcycle local industrial network: the role of
contextual factors. Journal of Cleaner Production 66: 372–383.
Taylor R (2012) Coping with pollution: Dealing with waste. In: Harris F (ed.)
Global Environmental Issues. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Singapore.
Wu H-Q, Shia Y, Xiaa Q, et al. (2014) Effectiveness of the policy of circular
economy in China: A DEA-based analysis for the period of 11th five-
year-plan. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 83: 163– 175.
Wittmaier M, Langer S and Sawilla B (2009) Possibilities and limitations
of life cycle assessment (LCA) in the development of waste utilization
systems – Applied examples for a region in Northern Germany. Waste
Management 29: 1732–1738.
Zaman AU (2014a) Identification of key assessment indicators of the zero
waste management systems. Ecological Indicators 36: 682– 693.
Zaman AU (2014b) Measuring waste management performance using the
‘Zero Waste Index’: the case of Adelaide, Australia. Journal of Cleaner
Production 66: 407–419.
Zamorano M, Grindlay A, Molero E, et al. (2011) Diagnosis and propos-
als for waste management in industrial areas in the service sector: case
study in the metropolitan area of Granada (Spain). Journal of Cleaner
Production 19: 1946–1955.