CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 1 Initiatives in France for disposal of treated wood waste...
-
Upload
claire-mcdaniel -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 1 Initiatives in France for disposal of treated wood waste...
CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 1
Initiatives in France for disposal of treated wood waste
Claire Cornillier - CTBA
By :• Government• Stakeholders of wood sector• Waste management companies
CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 2
Iniatives by government
• Classifies treated wood waste in 2 categories according to risk assesment :– Non hazardous waste– Hazardous waste
• Gives a specific codification for wood waste according origin and risk categories
• Excludes wood waste containing organohalogenes or heavy metals as wood waste fuel in combustion equipments
• Forbides to landfill all wood waste
CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 3
Regulation defines 3 categories of waste according to risk assessment
Trated wood waste
Hazardous
Non inert
Risk+
Hazardous waste
Non hazardous waste but also non inert waste (domestic waste and assimilated)
Inert waste-
Category
CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 4
What is hazardous waste ?
• Waste showing any of the hazardous properties (14) or containing substances classified as hazardous and at a total concentration exceeding a threshold level
• Main hazardous properties available for treated wood waste– H6 : very toxic, or containing very toxic substances at a total C
0,1%, or toxic, or containing toxic substances at a total C 3%– H5 : harmful, or containing harmful substances at a total C 25%– H14: ecotoxic (not yet specificed)
CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 5
Hazardous properties of treated wood waste can be assessed
Treated wood waste
Toxic properties : H6, H5
according to the waste chemical composition
First assessment
Hazardous waste Non hazardous waste
Ecotoxic property : H14
not yet specified
?Second assessment
CCA, CCB, CC, creosote
All other products to treat wood
ACQ ?
CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 6
Gives a specific codification for wood waste according origin and risk categories
HAZARDOUS WASTE NON HAZARDOUS WASTE
Waste from wood processing and the production paper
Cardboard, pulp, panels and furniture
03 01 04* : sawdust, shavings, cuttings, wood, particule board and veneer containing dangerous substances
03 01 05 : sawdust, shavings, cuttings, wood, particule board and veneer other than those mentioned 03 01 04
Waste packaging, absorbents, wiping, …
15 01 10* : packaging containing residues of or contaminated by dangerous substances
15 01 03 : wooden packaging
Construction and demolition waste
(including excavated soil from contaminated sites)
17 02 04* : wood containing or contaminated with dangerous substances
17 02 01 : wood
Municipal waste including separately collected fractions
20 01 37* : wood containing dangerous substances
20 01 38 : wood other than mentioned in 20 01 37
CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 7
Initiatives by stakeholders of wood sector
• To use wood waste energy recovery
• To recycle wood waste in particule board
• To document C&D wood waste
• To set up a dedicated pressure treated wood waste management system
CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 8
To specify the regulation of wood waste fuel, CTBA with wood industry
• Defines waste wood fuels in terms of chemical composition, taking into account :
– combustion regulation
– wood additives, their origin and their concentration into the wood waste
– natural content of wood in heavy metals, and in organochlorines as PCP (environmental contamination)
• Sets up specifications on the basis of an analysis of the different waste resources :
– pallet chips
– industrial waste
– non specified waste
CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 9
Chemical compositionof wood waste fuels
Additives Natural concentration (ppm) Substance or compound
Use ppm Max mean Max value Threshold proposal
(ppm) As P < 7000 1,4 6,8 +10 Cd C < 5000 0,7 3,8 +10 Cr P, C < 10000 22,6 130,0 +100 Cu P, C < 6000 21,9 400,0 +400 Mn C ? 180,6 1100,0 / (Pb) C < 5000 29,0 340,0 +100 Zn C < 5000 228,0 228,0 + 200
Total < 1000 Cl P, G < 10000 1100,0 11890,0 10000 (F) P ? 40,0 490,0 5000 N G < 50000 5000,0 34100,0 50000 S G ? 700,0 8800,0 ?
Total organohalogene (PCP, lindane, aldrine,
endosulfan Pyréthrinoïdes, triazoles)
P < 1000 3,8 / 10
PAH (creosote) P < 25000 3,1 15,6 1000 B P < 1000 15 60,0 1000 Sn P < 1000 1,7 10,0 1000
Quats P < 5000 / / 5000 Glues and resins G, C < 150000 / / 150000
P = preservation / G = glue / C = coating
CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 10
A specification example :industrial wood waste fuel
• In the case of CCA, copper based products, organohalogenes and creosote, any off-cuts after treatment to be discarded
• In the case of metallic pigments (Cd, Cr, Zn) any off-cuts after finishing to be discarded
• PVC containing off-cuts to be discarded
• Panels and glues containing chlorine based hardeners not to be used
• Metals, organohalogenes, PAH, Chlorine levels to be checked according to previous thresholds
CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 11
European Panel Federation defines requirements of wood waste for recycling in particule board
Substances Threshold (ppm) Arsenic 25 Cadmium 50 Chromium 25 Copper 40 Plomb 90 Mercure 25 Fluorine 100 Chlore 1000 Pentachlorophenol 5 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.5
CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 12
CTBA study of C&D wood waste chemical analysis in progress
• 1.6 million tons in France• Mainly non hazardous waste and can be recycled
or recovered in energy, but some hazardous (CCA)• Up to now, burned on building site, landfilled or
recycled in particle board
CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 13
CTBA study of C&D wood waste chemical analysis in progress
• Never documented by chemical analysis• 45 samples of crushed wood waste from
construction sites, restoration sites, demolition sites, and C&D facilities
• First results show some contaminations by Pb, Zn, Cu, Cr, As, between 10 and 1000 ppm
CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 14
What is a dedicated waste management system ?
• Principle « extended responsibility for the producer »• For example in France : tires, batteries• Most regulatory, some voluntary• Involvement of all stakeholders :
– Producers, to organize and finance– Distributors, to take a part in collection– Users, who can remove, sort and collect– Local communities, to take a part in collection– Government, to regulate and control– Companies to collect, treat, recycle, or dispose of
• Integration of the cost of the end of life of the product
CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 15
French context for pressure treated wood
• Mainly pressure treated softwood for outside uses• Mainly creosote and CCA over the last 40 years• Decreasing of creosote but CCA increasing
considerably oven the last 20 years• Pressure treated wood coming out of service :
hazardous waste• No efficient waste management for pressure
treated wood removed from service : the principle « polluter pays » doesn’t work
CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 16
French context for pressure treated wood
• Restriction of uses of arsenic in wood preservation (directive n°2003/2/CE and « décret » n°2004-1227) : application the most strict principle « reduction at source »
• For the new preservative product, like ACQ, also need for specific management
• If no improvement, risk of pressure treated wood market disappearance
• A new association of wood pressative suppliers and wood treaters, to improve the pressure treated wood waste management : ARBUST
CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 17
Objectives of the study• To evaluate the parameters influencing the
feasibility– Characteristics of pressure treated wood waste– Amount of pressure treated wood in service and
applications– Regulation– Stakeholders of the market (producers, distributors,
importators, wood preservatives suppliers, users and professional organizations)
– Economic data of the market– Current pressure treated wood waste management– Available means for collection, disposal, and costs
• To define the priority actions to improve pressure treated wood waste management
CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 18
Main Results
• Pressure treated wood market– Creosote– Metal formulations (CCA, CCB, …)
• Pressure wood waste amount– Estimated from the service life– Collected today
• Data of available solutions of disposal• Proposal approaches to set up a dedicated
waste management system
CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 19
Creosote treated wood market
• Few main applications :– Rail ties– Poles
• Limitation of professional and industrial uses, with exclusions
• Duration of life between 30 and 40 years• Few stakeholders• No signifiant importation or exportation• Decrease in consumption over the past
40 years
CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 20
Estimated amount of creosote treated woodcoming out of service for the next 50 years
0
50 000
100 000
150 000
200 000
250 000
1960
1963
1966
1969
1972
1975
1978
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
2011
2014
2017
2020
2023
2026
2029
2032
2035
2038
2041
2044
2047
2050
2053
2056
2059
year
t
rail ties
poles
other creosote treated wood products
Creosote wood coming out of service
Modelisation
CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 21
Creosote treated wood waste amount
• Estimation from service life– For the next 20 years : constant about 200 000
t/year– Afterwards : a steep decrease to 110 000 t/year– Mainly SNCF rail ties
• Very different from estimated amounts by users (SNCF, EDF)
CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 22
Metal treated wood market
• For the last 20 years : diversification and increase, in particular for outside equipments
• Before 2 traditional uses : poles and stakes• But today limited for professional and
industrial uses• Divided in 6 sectors, with different service life• French impregnators used mainly CCA• For the outdoor equipments, more than 80%
from importation, so right now importation more than 50% of French market
• Mainly imported wood is treated by CCB
CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 23
Estimated amount of metal treated woodcoming out of service for the next 30 years
0
100 000
200 000
300 000
400 000
500 000
600 000
700 000
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
2032
2034
year
t
poles (30 years)stakes (20 years)civil engineering structure (30 years)framing (50 years)siding (30 years)outdoor equipments (10 years)metal treated wood coming out of service
CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 24
Metal treated wood waste amount
• Estimation from service life– Very different of estimated amounts consumers– For the next 20 years increase from 130 000 t/year to
600 000 t/year with a lot of outdoor equipment, after constant
– For the next 10 years mainly CCA and CCB, after mainly organic copper
CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 25
Distribution of metal treated woodcoming out of service in the next 30 years
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
21
20
22
20
23
20
24
20
25
20
26
20
27
20
28
20
29
20
30
20
31
20
32
20
33
20
34
20
35
year
t
C
CC
CCB
CCA
CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 26
Available solutions for disposal : initiatives by waste management companies
• Mainly thermal treatment– Traditional– Specific, but still in development, except one solution
(SIDENERGIE)
• Estimated cost : 200 €/t• Localisation on a map
CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 27
Specific thermal treatments
Type R E company Creo-sote
CCX
Processing t/year
Potential processing
t/year Cost
Processing in 2004
Area
Thermolysis (<450 °C) with charcoal
x x Sidenergie x 18 000 22 000
9 000 France
(46)
PGI (pyrolysis gasification inerting)
x Ancor x x 50 000
nc France
(40)
Charterm (pyrolysis low temperature)
x x Thermya x x 10 000
nc France
(33)
R : Recycling or Reuse 150€/t x : yes E : Energy recovery 150 €/t < 300€/t x* : waiting for validation nc : not communicated 300€/t < 450€/t
CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 28
SIDENERGIE : Charcoal production from creosote treated wood
• 500 °C thermolysis with combustion of gazes• Charcoal evaluated by toxicologists and approved
for “barbecue uses”• 22000 t/y treatment capacity
CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 29
THERMYA : Chartherm process
• Low temperature pyrolisis under inert gas• Energy self sufficient system• Mechanical separation of metals from carbon• 1t of wood 280 kg of carbon + 50 kg metals• Industrial markets for graphitic carbon• Pilot plant developed (10 000 t/y)• Project to develop and operate full scale plants
(30 000 t/y)
CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 30
ANCOR : PGI process
• High temperature pyrolysis (1200 °C)• Energy production from gases combustion• Pilot equipment under test (300 kg/h), with other
carbon containing products (tires)• Mineral fraction including metals can be recycled
(glass)
CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 31
Traditional thermal hazardous waste treatments
Type R E company Creo-sote
CCX
Processing t/year
Potential processing
t/year Cost
Processing in 2004
Area
Hazardous waste incineration
x Tredi x x 30 000 70 000
nc France
(38, 67, 76)
Hazardous waste incineration
x SARP
industrie x x nc nc
nc
France (78, 33)
Coincineration in cement factory
x SCORI x x* 40 000 400 000
710 France
(38, 18)
Hazardous waste Incineration
x Egger x nc
nc France
(88)
R : Recycling or Reuse 150€/t x : yes E : Energy recovery 150 €/t < 300€/t x* : waiting for validation nc : not communicated 300€/t < 450€/t
CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 32
Traitement des bois t
Incinerator
Incinerator
Incinerator
THERMYA
ANCOR
SIDENERGIE
Incinerator
Incinerator
Incinerator
Cement Kiln
Cement kiln
All treated wood
Traitement des bois
Radius : 150 km
Only creosote treated wood
1 / 5 550 000
Hazardous wood waste facilities location
CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 33
Proposal approaches to set up a dedicated waste management system
• To separate in 2 waste streams – Poles and rail ties : easy to collect– Other products : more difficult to collect (from consumers, building,
agriculture, local communities)
• To work in priority for the collection of the second stream• To take some simulation to assess the feasability of setting
up a dedicated waste management system in making hypothesis– Collection rate (from 5% to 25%)– Cost of waste management (from 200 €/t to 75 €/t)– Consumption of pressure treated wood
CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 34
Collection Hypothesis for the pressure treated wood waste (without poles and rail ties)
0
20 000
40 000
60 000
80 000
100 000
120 000
140 000
160 000
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019
2021
2023
2025
2027
2029
2031
2033
2035
2037
2039
year
t
CCA CCB CC C
CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 35
Hypothesis to set up a dedicated pressure treated wood waste management systeme
Collection Price treatmentt t total total producted fr imported /fr products /total €/t fr products total fr products total
2005 2 725 200 545 000 911 777 364 711 547 066 1,49 0,60 120 1,25% 0,50% 0,37% 0,15%2006 4 348 190 826 025 963 749 385 500 578 250 2,14 0,86 124 1,73% 0,69% 0,52% 0,21%2007 6 244 181 1 126 963 1 004 956 401 983 602 974 2,80 1,12 127 2,20% 0,88% 0,66% 0,26%2008 8 318 171 1 426 391 1 048 149 419 260 628 890 3,40 1,36 131 2,59% 1,04% 0,78% 0,31%2009 10 585 163 1 724 315 1 093 425 437 370 656 055 3,94 1,58 135 2,92% 1,17% 0,88% 0,35%2010 13 058 155 2 020 741 1 137 787 455 115 682 672 4,44 1,78 139 3,19% 1,28% 0,96% 0,38%2011 15 751 147 2 315 673 1 091 880 436 752 655 128 5,30 2,12 143 3,70% 1,48% 1,11% 0,44%2012 18 731 140 2 616 102 1 092 906 437 163 655 744 5,98 2,39 148 4,05% 1,62% 1,22% 0,49%2013 21 970 133 2 915 014 1 093 963 437 585 656 378 6,66 2,66 152 4,38% 1,75% 1,31% 0,53%2014 25 485 126 3 212 415 1 095 052 438 021 657 031 7,33 2,93 157 4,68% 1,87% 1,41% 0,56%2015 28 353 120 3 395 155 1 096 173 438 469 657 704 7,74 3,10 161 4,80% 1,92% 1,44% 0,58%2016 31 596 114 3 594 405 1 097 328 438 931 658 397 8,19 3,28 166 4,93% 1,97% 1,48% 0,59%2017 35 447 108 3 830 815 1 098 517 439 407 659 110 8,72 3,49 171 5,10% 2,04% 1,53% 0,61%2018 39 111 103 4 015 473 1 099 743 439 897 659 846 9,13 3,65 176 5,18% 2,07% 1,55% 0,62%2019 43 137 98 4 207 357 1 101 005 440 402 660 603 9,55 3,82 182 5,26% 2,11% 1,58% 0,63%2020 47 590 93 4 409 635 1 102 304 440 922 661 383 10,00 4,00 187 5,35% 2,14% 1,60% 0,64%2021 52 522 88 4 623 256 1 102 304 440 922 661 383 10,49 4,19 193 5,45% 2,18% 1,63% 0,65%2022 55 541 84 4 644 535 1 102 304 440 922 661 383 10,53 4,21 198 5,31% 2,12% 1,59% 0,64%2023 58 730 79 4 665 678 1 102 304 440 922 661 383 10,58 4,23 204 5,18% 2,07% 1,55% 0,62%
add cost (% price of product)Cost add cost (€/t)French consumption add cost (% /price treatment)year
Tax only on french production, added cost from 0.4 to 1.5 %
Tax on total consumption, added cost from 0.1 to 0.6 %
CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 36
In conclusion• Development needs
– Characterisation tools to identify the contaminants to allow treated wood waste sorting : fast, cheap, high sensibility
– Simple thermal treatment equipments for non-hazardous treated wood waste (with no harmful emissions and with a regional distribution), allowing an economically acceptable wood waste management
– To develop economically acceptable specific treatments for hazardous wood waste
• Future projects– To experiment on the field new technologies to identify
As, Cr and C– To set up a local operation with central waste facilities
and C&D waste facilities to test the collection