#FalseSolutionsExposed

Co-processing
in cement
kilns and RDF
The truth behind "recycling" and waste
trade

05 July 2023

Yuyun Ismawati
Nexus3 Foundation
yuyun@nexus3foundation.org
About me
Education:
• Bachelor degree in Engineering,
Environmental Engineering Dept, ITB
• MSc in Environmental Change and
Management, University of Oxford
• Dipl. Medical Research – International
Health, Ludwig-Maximillian University,
(LMU), Munich
Awards:
• Forbes Indonesia Inspiring Women 2014
• Goldman Environmental Prize 2009
• TIME Heroes 2009
• Ashoka Fellow 2002
• LEAD Fellow 2001
About Nexus3
• Established in June 2000 [BaliFokus
Foundation]
• Jan 2019 re-branding as the Nexus for Health,
Environment, and Development Foundation
(Nexus3)
• Work with all stakeholders to protect
vulnerable groups from the impact of
development on their health and the
environment, towards a just, toxic-free and
sustainable future
• Local problems, global challenges
• www.nexus3foundation.org
Acknowledgement
• IPEN
• Basel Action Network
• BreakFreeFromPlastic
• Arnika Association
• The Swedish government to IPEN
• Consumers Association Penang, Malaysia
• Eco Waste Coalition, the Philippines
• EARTH, Thailand
• National Toxic Network, Australia
• Ecoton
• Alliance for Zero Waste Indonesia (AZWI)
Chemicals of concern in plastics

Number of chemicals of
concern addressed
internationally.

Data extracted from

supplementary material
included in studies
conducted by Wiesinger
et al. (2021) and
Aurisano et al. (2021).

4
Source: BRS (2023). Global governance of plastics and associated chemicals.
What is RDF?
Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF)
Process Engineered Fuel (PEF)
Solid Waste Fuel (SWF)
Waste Derived Fuel (WDF)
Solid Recovered Fuel (SRF)
Sources:
• Municipal Solid Waste
• Commercial and Industrial Waste
• Construction and Demolition
Waste
• Vehicles tyres

Tyre-Derived Fuel (TDF)

Transboundary of RDF and SRF
• Popular since 1990s:
SRF, RDF, MBT
• Transboundary
shipments of RDF (red
line) and SRF (blue line)
in Asia:
• Cambodia, China, India,
Indonesia, Thailand,
Malaysia, Myanmar, and
Vietnam
Source: Ishigaki Tomonari, 2017
 What is the difference between RDF vs SRF?
• Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) is a relatively crude
material, produced by shredding pre-sorted
municipal solid waste (MSW).
• Before the MSW can enter the RDF production
process, valuable commodities such as paper,
metal, glass and wood should have been removed
for recycling.
• Particle size typically between 80 and 500mm,
lower calorific values of 8-14MJ/kg.
• RDF is less refined compared to SRF and typically
not as ‘efficient’ as fuel.
• Solid Recovered Fuel (SRF) on the other hand, is
a much more refined resource, produced to a
defined quality specification, usually
from commercial and industrial waste, or other
complex materials such as carpets, pulper ropes,
production waste or mattresses.
• Particle size of less than 30mm, moisture content
of <15% and a calorific value of 18-22MJ/kg.
• SRF is a more time-consuming process, but the
resulting material is very usable as fuel across the
rest of industry.
 Seven Types of RDF based on pre-sorted Municipal
Solid Waste (MSW) Type/grade of
RDF

Caloric values of
RDF samples from
Indonesia
1 kcal = 0.0041868 MJ
Fluff fuel
 Indonesia:
No. SNI number Concerning Technical committee Scope
Biopellets
1 SNI 8675:2018 Biomass pellets for energy (Pelet biomassa 27-10, solid bioenergy and This standard stipulates the requirements for biomass
untuk energi) gas pellets used as energy for domestic and/or industrial
purposes National Standards
2 SNI 8021:2020 Wood pellets (Pelet kayu) 79-01, wood forest
products
This standard specifies the classification, quality
requirements, sampling, test methods, packaging and
labeling of wood pellets
for RDF bio-pellets
3 SNI 8951:2020 Biomass pellets for electricity generation 27-10, solid bioenergy and This standard stipulates the requirements and specific
(Pelet biomassa untuk pembangkit listrik) gas test methods for biomass pellets used as fuel in Coal- and briquettes
fired Power Plants (PLTU) using Pulverizer Coal (PC)
or Circulating Fluidized Bed (CFB) or Stoker boilers
and PLTBm (Biomass Power Plants).
4 SNI 8966:2021 Refuse Derived Fuel/Solid Recovered Fuel 27-10, solid bioenergy and This standard establishes quality requirements and test
for electricity generation (Bahan bakar gas methods for the use of solid jump fuel in power plants
jumputan padat untuk pembangkit listrik) for co-firing purposes, and as a standard guideline in
establishing specifications, sampling, test methods,
shipping and storage.
5 RSNI1 XXXX:2021 Woodchips for cofiring in electricity 27-10, solid bioenergy and This standard stipulates the requirements and test
(in review process) generation plant (Potongan kayu untuk gas methods for specification of wood chips used as fuel for
cofiring pada pembangkit listrik) cofiring in Coal-fired Power Plants (PLTU).
6 RSNI1 XXXX:2021 Palm oil shells for cofiring in power plants 27-10, solid bioenergy and This standard stipulates the requirements and test
(in review process) (Cangkang sawit untuk cofiring pada gas methods for the specification of palm shells used as
pembangkit listrik) cofiring fuel in Coal-fired Power Plants (PLTU).
7 RSNI1 XXXX:2021 Sawdust for cofiring in power plants (Serbuk 27-10, solid bioenergy and This standard stipulates the requirements and test
(in review process) gergaji untuk cofiring pada pembangkit gas methods for the specification of sawdust used as fuel
listrik) for cofiring in Coal-fired Power Plants (PLTU).
Briquettes
1 SNI 19-4791-1998 Coconut coir powder briquettes 27-10, solid bioenergy and This standard includes references, definitions, quality
gas requirements, sampling methods, test methods,
marking requirements, and packaging methods
2 SNI 01-6235-2000 Wood charcoal briquettes 27-10, solid bioenergy and This standard includes scope, reference, definition,
gas quality requirements, sampling, test method, test pass
requirements, marking and packaging requirements for
wood charcoal briquettes.
Source: Badan Standarisasi Nasional Indonesia, 2021
Key facts of cement industry
• Capital intensity: The cost of cement plants is usually above
€150M per million tonnes of annual capacity, with
correspondingly high costs for modifications. The cost of a
new cement plant is equivalent to around 30 years of
turnover, which ranks the cement industry among the most
capital-intensive industries.
• Transport: Land transportation costs are significant, and
cement could not be economically hauled beyond 200-300
km. Bulk shipping has changed that, however, and it is now
cheaper to cross the Atlantic Ocean with 35,000 tonnes of
cargo than to truck it 300 km.
• Energy intensity: Each tonne of cement produced requires
60 to 130 kg of fuel oil or its equivalent, depending on the
cement type and the process used, and about 110 KWh of
electricity. The process needs 3000–5000 kJ/kg (3-5 MJ/kg)
of produced clinker.
Source: https://cembureau.eu/about-our-industry/key-facts-figures/
 World cement
production
2022, by region
and main
countries
(% estimations)

https://cembureau.eu/about-our-industry/key-facts-figures/
Cement • Plastic waste is quickly
industry outstripping countries’
capacity to bury or • “…Thus the waste-
responses to recycle it.
to-fuel option may
plastic • Burning it eliminates
well become an
problems large amounts of this
material quickly, with unstoppable
little special handling or juggernaut.”
new facilities required.
• There are an estimated Matthias Mersmann, chief
3,000 or more cement technology officer at KHD Humboldt
Wedag International AG, a German
plants worldwide. All engineering firm that supplies
are hungry for fuel. equipment to cement plants
worldwide.
The following wastes should not, in
principle, be co-processed in cement
kilns
a) Radioactive or nuclear waste;
b) Electrical and electronic waste (e-waste);
c) Whole batteries;
d) Corrosive waste, including mineral acids;
e) Explosives;
f) Cyanide bearing waste;
g) Asbestos-containing waste;
h) Infectious medical waste;
i) Chemical or biological weapons destined to
destruction;
j) Waste consisting of, containing or contaminated with
mercury;
k) Waste of unknown or unpredictable composition,
including unsorted municipal waste.
https://www.basel.int/DNNAdmin/AllNews/tabid/2290/ctl/AuthorView/mid/7518/AuthorID/27/currentpage/3/Default.aspx
Dioxin emission and distribution from cement kiln
co-processing of hazardous solid waste
• Solidified fly ash, electroplating sludge, and
industrial residue, were co-processed in a
cement kiln.
• The concentrations of dioxins in the flue gas,
clinker, and precalciner furnace slag were
investigated.
• Dioxin in the flue gas without added
hazardous waste was 1.57 ng/m3, and the
concentration varied from 1.03 to 6.49
ng/m3 after the addition of hazardous waste
• Dioxin in the flue gas and solid samples
increased substantially when the co-
processing ratio doubled
• Addition of single hazardous waste, the
concentration of dioxin in precalciner furnace
slag increases by about 300%.
• Cu (copper) increased dioxins concentration,
S (sulphide) decreased it.

Source~: Ye Wen-Wen et al. (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-19675-0

Perspectives and limits for cement kilns as a destination
for RDF • RDF usually has a higher content of Sb, Hg, Cd, As,
Pb, Cu, Cr and Zn than pet coke, but sometimes
coal can also present large amounts of Hg, Co, Cd
and Tl.
• The compatibility of RDF as a fuel depends on its
quality.
• The transfer factors can be very plant-specific and
should be determined case-by-case.

Emission limits

Source: ISDE. G. Genon and E. Brizio. (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2007.10.022

Alternative fuels and
coprocessing in cement

Source: Nexus3. (2022). RDF in Indonesia. https://ipen.org/sites/default/files/documents/ipen-

rdf-pef-indonesia-v1_5aw-en.pdf
Multi-stakeholders partnership to
burn plastics
Indonesia: Coprocessing in
cement kilns
• Thermal Substitution Rate target
Energy
Energy (kcal/kg) 15-23% by 2025
Wastes
(MJ/kg)a (Petcoke • Indonesia: SIG co-processing 6-15%
~7500)b Source: Sarc et al. 2019
• CAPEX needed for coprocessing
Used tire 23.03 5,500 • Collaboration with local suppliers
Husk 19.93 4,760 of RDF fluff
Industrial • FMGcs supports and claimed
18.21 4,350 plastic credits
plastic
Waste oil 14.65 3,500
Scrap paper 14.23 3,400
Contaminated
14.23 3,400
waste
RDF plastic 11.72 2,800
Sewage
8.37 2,000
sludge
Source: aAkcansa (2010) and
bEkincioglu et al. (2012)
Indonesia: MoEF Regulation No. P19/2017 emission
standard for cement industry

PCDDs/Fs Alternative
Fuels using:
• RDF from MSW waste
measured every four
years after the facility
started its operation
• Hazardous waste à
measured at least
once a year

Source: Nexus3. (2022). RDF in Indonesia.

https://ipen.org/sites/default/files/documents/ipen-
rdf-pef-indonesia-v1_5aw-en.pdf
Tracking waste trade’s Harmonized system (HS) codes
• HS 3915 for Waste, parings and scrap, of plastics.
There is a whole range of associated categories of plastic waste under this category
for different polymers and types of waste. 3915 is the base code with additional
numbers added to this to describe the different categories of plastic waste.
• HS 3825 for Residual products of the chemical or allied industries, not elsewhere
specified or included; municipal waste; sewage sludge; other wastes .... Whole range
of different categories of residual waste products classified under this base code.
• HS 3825.10 is the code for refuse derived fuel
• HS 3606.90.10 code for processed engineered fuel (Singapore Customs ruling in
June 2015)
Australia’s export of waste-derived products to Indonesia
(HS Code 3825, 3915, 4707, 400400, 401220, 401290, 700700) (in kg) (UN Comtrade)

Glass- Total Value PEF

Year Plastic-based Paper-based Tyre-based Total Value (USD) PEFs
based (USD)

2017 14,921,730.00 294,947,470.00 363,053.00 0 US$58,352,010.00 8,256.00 US$13,611.00

2018 46,519,780.00 185,451,770.00 61,439.00 100,000 US$35,553,746.00 80,332.00 US$52,365.00

2019 35,378,430.00 194,117,600.00 109,349.00 0 US$30,539,990.00 0.00 US$0.00

2020 14,190,366.00 361,928,630.00 58,574.00 5 US$53,376,622.00 1,887.00 US$1,397.00

PHI HS 3825
SGP HS 360690
 Malaysia: Cement plants co-processing waste
Nine cement plants in Malaysia are co- 1. Pahang Cement Sdn. Bhd. Bukit Sagu, Kuantan,
processing waste such as PEF, Tire-Derived Pahang
Fuel (TDF), RDF, scheduled (hazardous) waste, 2. Perak Hanjoong Simen Sdn. Bhd. Padang Rengas,
fly ash, copper slag, saw dust, soap sludge, Kuala Kangsar, Perak
fluid cracking catalyst.
3. Tasek Corporation Berhad, Ipoh, Perak
4. Associated Pan Malaysia Cement Sdn. Bhd. Jalan
Kuala Kangsar, Perak
5. Hume Cement Sdn Bhd, Gopeng, Perak
6. Negeri Sembilan Cement Industries Sdn Bhd (Perlis
Plant) Bukit Keteri, Chuping, Perlis
7. Negeri Sembilan Cement Industries Sdn. Bhd. (Kp)
Bahau, Negeri Sembilan
8. CMS Cement Industries Sdn Bhd. Kuching, Sarawak
9. CMS Cement Industries Sdn Bhd. Bintulu, Sarawak

Source: from CAP, RDF report, https://www.doe.gov.my/senarai-kilang-simen-yang-menjalankan- aktiviti-co-prosessing/

The Philippines:
RDF/PEF use is Increasing with
importation as a Key Driver
The Philippines:
Policy fails
• Existing policies fail to
consider the increasing
evidence of the
potential harmful
effects
• PEF use is also
inconsistent with
several other existing
laws and policies
• Exacerbated by the
increasing importation
of PEF and the lack of
information on its use
and facilities
 Recommendations
A ban on waste imports,
including waste derivatives such
Listing RDF and similar plastic
as RDF (this could include Burning plastics/RDF in cement
waste fuels as hazardous
renegotiation of trade deals that kilns should be excluded from
substances in the Basel
facilitate the movement of plastic credits
Convention;
waste products - this should be
done on a pan-ASEAN basis);

The high potential of RDF to Cement kilns, industrial boilers,

generate chlorinated,
brominated dioxins and heavy
metals requires a thorough and
transparent scientific
assessment
and other high-energy use
industries should move swiftly
to substitution with clean fuels,
such as green hydrogen to
replace fossil fuels.
THANK YOU

Yuyun Ismawati

yuyun@nexus3foundation.org

References
https://ipen.org/news/plastic-waste-fuels
Selected references
• Ishigaki, T., Current situation on production of SRF and RDF produced in Japan, in The JGSEECEE Knowledge Sharing Seminar on RDF Production,
Utilisation and Standardisation. 2017: Bangkok.
• Jambeck, J.R., et al., Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science Magazine, 2015. 347(6223): p. 768-771.
• Meijer, L.J.J., et al., More than 1000 rivers account for 80% of global riverine plastic emissions into the ocean. Sci Adv, 2021. 7(18).
• Cordova, M.R., et al., Naskah Akademik: Inisiasi Data Sampah Laut Indonesia Untuk Melengkapi Rencana Aksi Nasional Penanganan Sampah Laut
Sesuai Peraturan Presiden RI No.83 Tahun 2018. 2019.
• WorldBank, Indonesia - Marine Debris Hotspots. Rapid Assessment - Synthesis Report. 2018, World Bank - Kemenko Bidang Kemaritiman - Embassy of
Denmark - Royal Norwegian Embassy: Jakarta.
• Shuker, I.G. and C.A. Cadman, Indonesia Marine Debris Hotspot. TF0B0885-CFI-CF Indonesia, TF0A8455-ID Strengthen Resilience of Coastal and
Marine Resources, TF0B1560-4.3-ID-Inputs into the Systematic Country Diagnostic (SCD) and Country, TF0A6994-Support for Indonesia’s Oceans
Agenda. Vol. 126686. 2018, Washington, D.C: World Bank Group.
• Ismawati, Y., N. Proboretno, and M.A. Septiono, Plastic Waste Management and Burden in Indonesia. 2022, AZWI - Arnika - IPEN - Nexus3 Foundation:
Jakarta.
• Widowati, L., et al., Pedoman Spesifikasi Teknis Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) sebagai Alternatif Bahan Bakar di Industri Semen. 2017, Kementerian
Perindustrian - Asosiasi Semen Indonesia: Jakarta.
• Mersmann, M. What is limiting the utilization of Alternative Fuel (TSR)? LinkedIn 2019; Available from: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-limiting-
utilization-alternative-fuel-tsr-matthiasmersmann/
• Çankaya, S., Investigating the environmental impacts of alternative fuel usage in cement production: a life cycle approach. Environment, Development
and Sustainability, 2020. 22(8): p. 7495- 7514.
• Sarc, R., et al., Design, quality and quality assurance of solid recovered fuels for the substitution of fossil feedstock in the cement industry – Update
2019. Waste Management & Research, 2019. 37(9): p. 885-897.
• Chatziaras, N., C.S. Psomopoulos, and N.J. Themelis, Use of waste derived fuels in cement industry: a review. Management of Environmental Quality:
An International Journal, 2016. 27(2): p. 178-193.
• Karstensen, K.H., Formation, release and control of dioxins in cement kilns. Chemosphere, 2008. 70(4): p. 543-60. 32. Genon, G. and E. Brizio,
Perspectives and limits for cement kilns as a destination for RDF. Waste Management, 2008. 28(11): p. 2375-2385.
• Pickin, J. and S. Donovan, Exports of Australian waste-derived products and wastes in February 2020. 2020, Blue Environment.
• Galaiduk, R., et al., Transnational Plastics: An Australian Case for Global Action. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 2020. 8.