appendix f germany - european commission · 2016-06-17 · under this law, the bio-waste ordinance...

European Commission - Directorate-General for Environment

WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

297

APPENDIX F GERMANY

SUMMARY

In principle, all recycling/re-use of waste is governed by the recently introduced waste law(Waste Avoidance, Recycling and Disposal Act). The emphasis of this law is on a hierarchy of(1) waste avoidance, (2) waste recycling, and (3) disposal of residual waste that cannot beprevented or recycled.

Under this law, the Bio-Waste Ordinance 1998 has been introduced to regulate the applicationof biological (organic) waste on agricultural, horticultural and forestry soils. A similarOrdinance governing the use of mineral waste/by-product application on land has been calledfor, and may be prepared in future.

Several other laws and regulations are also relevant, e.g. the Fertiliser Law and FertiliserOrdinance, and the Soil Protection Law and Soil Protection Ordinance. Consequently, there isa multitude of different quality standards applicable to soils and materials applied to soils.

The recent introduction of the Waste Avoidance and Recycling Act has lead to increasedoffers of organic and mineral waste and by-products from industry to farmers for use asfertilisers and soil improvers on agricultural land. In addition, considerable quantities of farmwaste (animal manure and slurry) are applied to agricultural land as fertilisers. The increase isexpected mainly in the form of compost, i.e. an increase from 1.3 million tonnes (as drysubstance) in 1995 to 40 million tonnes by 2005 has been predicted (Döhler, 1998). Thus,apart from solid manure, compost is expected to become the most important residue used inagriculture.

A review of mineral wastes/by-products (there is much debate about the definition of theseterms) and, whilst there are many gaps, a considerable body of information is available onquantities and quality of such wastes. With the exception of farm wastes, few quantitative datawere found for organic wastes, but qualitative data have been collated on a database, whichwas obtained.

An extensive research programme has been funded between 1990 and 1997 by the FederalAuthorities to investigate potential problems associated with farm waste and to offer solutions.Following completion of the various projects, it was concluded that, if current state-of-the-artwere to be implemented widely, the major environmental impacts could be reducedsignificantly. In this respect, it was recommended that the priority should focus on increasednumbers and better advisory bodies to help farmers put into practice the current knowledge.

In addition, an expert system was developed to assist farmers and advisory bodies inenvironmentally acceptable and sustainable utilisation of liquid farm manure. A database oforganic and mineral waste has also been produced, with the aim of providing a decision aidfor producers and users of waste materials, as well as those involved in waste processing anddistribution, and advisory bodies engaged in assisting farmers. This waste database providesa classification system of waste materials for re-use on land, qualitative data for a largenumber of waste types, and details about the potential application of wastes on land, includinginformation about relevant legislation, physical properties and appropriate methods ofapplication.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

298


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

299

F1 LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

The new Waste Law (Waste Avoidance, Recycling and Disposal Law – Kreislaufwirtschafts-und Abfallgesetz (KrW-/AbfG) 1994, last amended 1998) which took effect in October 1996,forms the basis of all recycling/re-use and disposal of waste. The emphasis of this law is on ahierarchy of (1) waste avoidance, (2) waste recycling, and (3) disposal of residual waste thatcannot be prevented or recycled.

Under this law, the Bio-Waste Ordinance (Bioabfallverordnung – BioAbfV, 1998) has beenintroduced to regulate the application of biological waste on agricultural, horticultural andforestry soils. A similar Ordinance governing the use of mineral waste/by-product applicationon land has been called for, and may be prepared in future (Gonser et al., 1999).

Other relevant laws and regulations, concerning the application of waste on land, are asfollows:

• The Fertiliser Law (Düngemittelgesetz - DMG 1977, as amended 1989 and 1994) and theFertiliser Ordinance (Düngemittelverordnung – DüMV - 1991); these regulate the quality offertilisers and their application (use of best practice, soil quality, nutrient balances etc.);

• The Soil Protection Law (Bundes-Bodenschutzgesetz – BBoSchG - 1998) and the SoilProtection Ordinance 1999 (Bundes-Bodenschutz- und Altlastenverordnung) whichregulate the protection of soil quality, soil uses and clean-up of contaminated soils.

Figure F1 shows an example of the application of the Waste Law to the use of waste materialor by-products on agricultural land, with specific reference to the Fertiliser Ordinance (Gonseret al., 1999).

The Bio-Waste Ordinance regulates the application of biological waste on agricultural,horticultural and forestry soils. Before any biological waste material or by-product can beapplied to soils, they must be treated to ensure the hygienic, including phyto-hygienic, qualityof the product. Detailed instructions, concerning the treatment requirements and appropriatetests to be carried out, are prescribed in Annex 2 of the Ordinance. Wastes that are, inprinciple, suitable for application on land are specified in Annex 1 of the Ordinance. This alsoprescribes specific conditions, such as the type of permitted use of a given waste, or therelevance of other legislation, e.g. the Animal Carcass Disposal Law, or the Animal DiseasesLaw. A translation of Annex 1 of the Bio-Waste Ordinance is provided in Table F7 of thisreport. Figure F2 below summarises the assessment of biological waste for application onland, according to the Bio-Waste Ordinance.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

300

Figure F1 Scheme of waste and fertiliser regulation for agricultural use of waste onland (Gonser et al., 1999)

Waste according to Waste Law

Waste Avoidance, Recycling and Disposal Law

including Art. 1: Recycling and Waste Law (KrW-/AbfG)

including Art. 4: Amendment of the Fertilser Law /DüMG

Re-Use Disposal

Otherapplications

Agriculturalapplication

Fertiliser Soil substituteSoilconditioner

Designation as fertiliser,incl. type, soil conditioner

or soil substitute

Specific applicationon non-agricultural

land Specific applicationon agricultural land

FertiliserOrdinance

Disposal on landsurfaces

Land surfaces

Treatment andacceptance as

fertiliser


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

301

Figure F2 Assessment of biological (organic) waste for application on land (Eurich-Menden, 1999 – figure reproduced in KTBL, 2000)

yes

Relevant nutrientcontent

yes

Application as fertiliser

no

no

Exemption according toArt. 6,2 of the BioAbfV

no

Disposal or recyclingaccording to Art. 27 ofthe Waste Avoidance,Recycling & Disposal

Law

Application assoil improver,

culturesubstrate orsoil additive

yes

Application as- Soil improver- Culture substrate- Soil additive

Contaminant testingok

no

yes

Recommendations of good practice (Fertiliser Ordinance, Soil Protection Law) and forspecial applications (agriculture, horticulture, cultivation) should be adhered to.

Waste as defined byWaste Ordinance

(BioAbfV)

no

Material may beadded to fertiliser

type listnoMaterial included in

fertiliser type list

yes

no

Criteria:• N < 0.5 % DS• P2O5 < 0.3 % DS• K2O < 0.5 % DS

• Load restriction according to Fertiliser Ordinance


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

302

The above laws and regulations are issued by the Federal authorities but each relevantauthority of the Länder (Federal States) may issue more detailed regulations and is alsoresponsible for the implementation and enforcement of Federal laws and regulations.

However, there are technical working groups, with representatives from the relevant authorityof each Land (Federal State), which elaborate technical recommendations to be applied atFederal level, for example the Working Group for Waste (Länderarbeitsgemeinschaft Abfall -LAGA) and the Working Group for Soil Protection (Länderarbeitsgemeinschaft Bodenschutz -LABO). These groups have published soil standards, for example LAGA has developedclassification values for recycling of mineral waste, and LABO has developed soil referencevalues for recycling compost on arable land (Bannick et al., 1998).

The classification soil values developed by LAGA for the recycling of mineral waste are shownin Table F1. These values have been incorporated into Technical Regulations concerning therequirements for recycling of mineral waste. Material that meets the Z0 values can be recycledin any way, since the Z0 values correspond to the upper limits of the geogenic variation ofnatural soils. Thus, it may be assumed that ‘relevant assets’ are not adversely affected, ifthese values are not exceeded. Material which corresponds to the Z1 values can be used forany land reclamation and landscaping purposes. Other values (Z2-values for limited recyclingwith technical safety measures) have been developed specifically in relation to the protectionof groundwater.

The soil reference values for recycling compost on land, as developed by LABO, are shown inTable F2. Values are provided for three different soil types: sand, loam and clay. On the basisof estimates from soil maps, sandy soils make up about 33% of soils in Germany; loamy soiland loess soils, which have similar hydrological behaviour, account for about 28% of all soils,and clay soils about 14%. Thus, about 75% of all soils are covered by the reference valuesdeveloped by LABO. With reference to the background values, and following the 90 percentilevalues of soils in rural areas and under agricultural use, the reference values in Table F2 arerecommended by LABO as the upper limit for recycling of organic materials on agriculturalland. These, however, have been superseded by the soil values of the Bio-Waste Ordinance,where most values are somewhat less strict and two have been omitted (arsenic andthallium).

Bannick et al. (1998) discussed the multitude of different soil values applied in differentsituations (those recommended by LAGA and LABO, those of the Wastewater TreatmentSludge Ordinance – see Table F3, and those used in environmental risk assessment (UVPG1990) – see Table F4), and called for clarification and a more unified approach. This seems tohave been addressed to some extent through the Bio-Waste Ordinance, although differentvalues still apply in different Ordinances (Bio-Waste Ordinance, Wastewater TreatmentSludge Ordinance) and technical regulations (LAGA values for mineral waste).

The soil values of the Sewage Sludge Ordinance (Table F3) were defined to prevent theapplication of sewage sludge to land contributing to deterioration of soils in those locationsalready polluted by harmful substances (e.g. industrial regions). However, today it isconsidered that these values should be revised in the light of new data on soils and on soil-plant transfer of heavy metals, and especially the recently established soil background data,as well as correlations between soil and plant heavy metal content (Bannick et al., 1998) (seevalues recommended by LABO, Table F2).


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

303

Table F1 Classification soil values Z0 – Z1.2 for recycling mineral waste (LAGA)(Bannick et al., 1998)

Z-Values (solids) Z-Values (eluate)Parameter Unit

Z0 Z1.1 Z1.2

Unit

Z0 Z1.1 Z1.2

pH-value 5.5 - 8 5.5 - 8 5 - 9 6.5 - 9 6.5 - 9 6 - 12

Conductivity µScm-1

500 500 1000

Chloride mg l-1 10 10 20

Sulphate mg l-1 50 50 100

Phenol index µg l-1 <10 10 50

EOX mg kg-1 1 3 10

Hydro-carbons mg kg-1 100 300 500

BTEX mg kg-1 < 1 1 3

VOX mg kg-1 < 1 1 3

PAH (EPA) mg kg-1 1 5 15

PCB mg kg-1 0.02 0.1 0.5

Arsenic mg kg-1 20 30 50 µg l-1 10 10 40

Lead mg kg-1 100 200 300 µg l-1 20 40 100

Cadmium mg kg-1 0.6 1 3 µg l-1 2 2 5

Chromium(total)

mg kg-1 50 100 200 µg l-1 15 30 75

Copper mg kg-1 40 100 200 µg l-1 50 50 150

Nickel mg kg-1 40 100 200 µg l-1 40 50 150

Mercury mg kg-1 0.3 1 3 µg l-1 0.2 0.2 1

Thallium mg kg-1 0.5 1 3 µg l-1 < 1 1 3

Zinc mg kg-1 120 300 500 µg l-1 100 100 300

Cyanide mg kg-1 1 10 30 µg l-1 < 1 10 50Notes:

EOX = extractable organo-halogen compoundsBTEX = extractable halogen compoundsVOX = volatile organo-halogen compoundsPAH = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons as defined by the US EPAPCB = polychlorinated by-phenyls as defined in the German standard DIN 51527

The soil values for environmental impact assessment (Table F4) are used primarily to assesswhether, for example, a new facility will change the physical, chemical or biologicalparameters of the soil. Two categories are provided. Category I is based on the SewageSludge Ordinance, with some additional parameters and refers to pollutant contents of typical


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

304

agricultural soils with a medium clay content (12-18%), a use-specific humus content of 2%and a pH range of pH 5.5-7. Category II comprises a set of lower values for which it isassumed that natural soil functions for any usage are not adversely affected.

The relevant limit values and guide values are summarised in Table F5. The information hasbeen taken mainly from Gonser et al. 1999, but the values of the draft Bio-Waste Ordinance1997 have been updated to incorporate those of the final version (Bio-AbfV 1998). A summaryof the relevant limit values for permitted fertilisers, as appropriate to different wastes or by-products, are presented in Table F6 (Gonser et al., 1999).

Table F2 Soil reference values for recycling compost on arable land (LABO)(Bannick et al., 1998, no units given - assuming mg kg-1 dry substance)

Soil typeParameter

Sand Loam Clay

Arsenic 3 10 10

Cadmium 0.3 0.3 1.0

Chromium 20 50 100

Copper 3 30 60

Mercury 0.03 0.06 0.14

Nickel 3 50 75

Lead 15 50 75

Thallium 0.2 0.4 0.7

Zinc 15 90 120

Table F3 Soil values of the Sewage Sludge Ordinance (1982/1992)

Parameter Soil value - mg kg-1 dry substance

Lead 100

Cadmium 1.5 (1) *

Chromium 100

Copper 60

Nickel 50

Mercury 1

Zinc 200 (150) *

Note: * (lower values) for sandy soils due to their particular vulnerability


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

305

Table F4 Soil values used in environmental impact assessment

Parameter Soil value – Category I

mg kg-1 dry substance

Soil value – Category II

mg kg-1 dry substance

Arsenic 40 24

Lead 100 60

Cadmium 1.5 0.9

Chromium 100 60

Copper 60 36

Nickel 50 30

Mercury 1 0.6

Zinc 200 120

Thallium 1 0.6

Benzo-(a)-pyrene 1 0.3

PAH 10 3

Note: PAH = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons as defined by the US EPA

Table F5 Summary of relevant limit values and guide values in relation to theanalysis of solids (from Gonser et al., 1999, but updated to incorporatevalues of the Bio-Waste Ordinance – BioAbfV - 1998)

Mineral waste -

TechnicalRegulations

Para-meter

Biologicalwaste,compost, etc.

(BioAbfV)

Sewage sludge

(Sewage SludgeOrdinance -AbfKlärV)

Soils (background levels)

Federal Soil ProtectionLaw - BBoSchG(Bachmann et al. 1997);and * BioAbfV LAGA

1995LAGA1997

‘Soilim-prover’(EU1998)

I

Art.6(1) s. 1,2

II

Art.6(1) s.3

I II

(lightsoil)

I

Soiltype:Clay

II

Soiltype:Clay/loam

III

Soiltype:Sand

Z1.1

Soil

Z.1.1

Ash -coarse,furnace,grate

mg kg-

1 DSmg kg-1 DS

mg kg-1

DSmg kg-1

DSmg kg-1

DSmg kg-1

DSmg kg-1

DSmg kg-1

DSmg kg-1

DSmg kg-1

DS

As - - - - 20 15 10 30 30 10 1)

Pb 150 100 900 900 100 * 70 * 40 * 200 200 100

Cd 1.5 1 10 5 1.5 * 1 * 0.4 * 1 1 1

Cr 100 70(100)2)

900 900 100 * 60 * 30 * 100 100 100

Cu 100 70(75)2)

800 800 60 * 40 * 20 * 100 100 100

Ni 50 35 200 200 70 * 50 * 15 * 100 100 50


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

306

Mineral waste -

TechnicalRegulations

Para-meter

Biologicalwaste,compost, etc.

(BioAbfV)

Sewage sludge

(Sewage SludgeOrdinance -AbfKlärV)

Soils (background levels)

Federal Soil ProtectionLaw - BBoSchG(Bachmann et al. 1997);and * BioAbfV LAGA

1995LAGA1997

‘Soilim-prover’(EU1998)

I

Art.6(1) s. 1,2

II

Art.6(1) s.3

I II

(lightsoil)

I

Soiltype:Clay

II

Soiltype:Clay/loam

III

Soiltype:Sand

Z1.1

Soil

Z.1.1

Ash -coarse,furnace,grate

mg kg-

1 DSmg kg-1 DS

mg kg-1

DSmg kg-1

DSmg kg-1

DSmg kg-1

DSmg kg-1

DSmg kg-1

DSmg kg-1

DSmg kg-1

DS

(50) 2)

Hg 1 0.7 (1)2)

8 8 1 * 0.5 * 0.1 * 1 1 1

Tl - - - - - - - 1 - -

Zn 400 300 2500 2000 200 * 150 * 60 * 300 300 300

CN-

(total)- - - - - - - 10 - -

PCB

28, 52,101,138,153, 180

- - 0.2 percon-

gener

- - - - 0.1

(sumDIN

51527)

- -

PCDD/PCDF

- - 100

(as ngTCDD-I-TE)

- - - - - - -

AOX - - 500 - - - - - - -

Σ PAH - - - - - - - 5 - -

Benzo-(a)-pyrene

- - - - - - - 0.5 - -

EOX - - - - - - - 3 - -

Hydro-carbons

- - - - - - - 300 - -

Notes:1) Limit applies only to products containing materials from industrial production processes or municipal waste2) Value (in brackets) of the draft Bio-Waste Ordinance – E-BioAbfV - (1997)

* also soil value of the Bio-Waste Ordinance - BioAbfV - 1998

DS = dry substance


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

307

Table F6 Summary of relevant limit values for permitted fertiliser types accordingto Annex 1 of the Fertiliser Ordinance (DüMV) (Gonser et al. 1999)

Fertilisertype

Minimumcontent% w/w 1)

Additionalrequirements

Particle size Production Other 1)

‘Thomas’phosphate

10% P2O5 Phosphatecontent defined asP2O5 soluble in2% citric acidsolution

96% <0.63 mm

75% <0.16 mm

Calcium silicaphosphate; from

processing ofphosphate containingslag from steelproduction

Residualpotash

20% K2O Potassium contentdefined as watersoluble K2O

Potassium containingresidues fromindustrial processes;

Potassium salts

Thallium (Tl):max. 10 mg kg-

1

Furnacelime

42% CaO Lime contentdefined as CaO

a) 97% <1.0 mm

80% <0.315 mm

b) 97% <3.15 mm

Ca and Mg silicates

from blast furnaceslag:

a) grinding

b) sifting

Converterlime

40% CaO Lime contentdefined as CaO

a) 97% <1.0 mm

80% <0.315 mm

b) 97% <3.15 mm

40% <0.315 mm

c) 97% <2.0 mm

50% <0.315 mm

Silicates and oxidesof Ca and Mg, Fe andMn compounds; from

a) grinding ofconverter slag,

b) sifting of converterslag,

c) sifting ofdisintegrated furnaceslag from non-alloyedsteel treatment

Residuallime - 1

30% CaO Lime contentdefined as >15%CaO reactivity(dilute HCl)

97% <4.0 mm

for Ca/Mgcarbonates:

97% <3.0 mm

70% <1.0 mm

Ca/Mg oxide,hydroxide, carbonate;from

industrial production,limestone/dolomiteprocessing,

water treatment forpublic supply andindustrial use

Pb 200 mg kg-

1

Cd 6 mg kg-

1

Ni 100 mg kg-1

Hg 4 mg kg-1

Tl 2 mg kg-1

B 0.05%

(water soluble)

Residuallime - 2

40% CaO BAST defined as>15% CaOreactivity

(in dilute HCl)

97% <3.0 mm

70% <1.0 mm

Oxide, sulfate,carbonate;

from brown coalbriquetting ash

Pb 200 mg kg-

1

Cd 6 mg kg-

1

Ni 100 mg kg-1

Hg 4 mg kg-1

Tl 2 mg kg-1


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

308

Fertilisertype




B 0.05%

(water soluble)

Carbonationlime

45%CaCO3

Lime contentdefined as CaCO3

97% <4.0 mm CaCO3 and otherbasic Ca/Mgcompounds, andorganic compounds;

from sugar beet juiceprecipitate obtainedby addition of limeand CO2

Calciumsulfate

14% S

18% Ca

Sulfur contentdefined as S;

Ca contentdefined as Ca

99% <10 mm

80% <2 mm

Natural and industrialorigin

Magnesium– rock meal

20% MgO Magnesium oxide 97% <0.2 mm

65% <0.032 mm

Mg-silicates;

from mechanicalprocessing of Mgcontaining rocks

Concen-tratedmagnesiumfertiliser

70% MgO Total magnesiumoxide

97% <4 mm Magnesium oxide

Magnesiumfertilisersuspension

15% MgO Total magnesiumoxide

Magnesium oxide,Magnesium hyroxide,

Magnesium salts

Sulfur-magnesiumfertiliser

6% S

6% MgO

Sulfur contentdefined as S;

Mg contentdefined as totalmagnesium oxide

97% <4 mm Sulfate, hydroxide,carbonate, or oxide ofCa or Mg from naturalor industrial sources

Tracenutrient -mixedfertiliser

Only inmineralform:

0.2% B

0.02% Co

0.5% Cu

2% Fe

0.5% Mn

0.02% Mo

or

0.5% Zn

Trace nutrientsdefined as totalcontent or watersoluble content

Mixing of watersoluble salts,

Dissolving of salts inwater

The fertilisermust contain atleast two of thespecified tracenutrients

Traceelementnutrient -mixedfertiliser

0.2% B

1% Fe

0.5% Cu

1% Mn

Trace nutrientsdefined as totalcontent

98% <1.0 mm

70% <1.6 mm

for granules:

Boron and metalcontainingsubstances, also inchelated form, inwater soluble and

The fertilisermust contain atleast two of thespecified tracenutrients;


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

309

Fertilisertype




0.01% Mo

or

0.5% Zn

98% <2.8 mm

70% <1.6 mm

water insoluble form The type oforiginalmaterial mustbe declared;

Pb 0.1% 1)

Iron salt 12% Fe Iron defined aswater soluble Fe

Iron-(II)-salt The anion mustbe declared

Residualmanganesefertiliser

10% Mn Mn defined astotal content

98% <2.8 mm

60% <1.6 mm

Manganese oxideand other Mncontainingsubstances

The type oforiginalmaterial mustbe declared

Note: 1) with respect to original substance


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

310

Table F7 List of bio-waste and mineral additives considered suitable, in principle,for application on land - Annex 1 of the Bio-Waste Ordinance (BioAbfV1998) 1)

Waste designationaccording to EAKOrdinance

(key/EU WasteCatalogue number)

Usable waste types 2) Supplementary information

(waste origin)

1. Waste with high organic component

Plant tissue waste

(02 01 03)

Husks, chaff ;

Husk and cereal dust;

Animal fodder.

- May be applied to permanent grassland,also in mixtures.

Animal faeces, urine andmanure (incl. spoiledstraw), effluent, collectedseparately and treatedoff-site

(02 01 06)

Poultry manure;

Pig and cattle slurry;

Solid manure;

Spoiled straw.

- Subject to Bio-Waste Ordinance only if notsubject to Fertiliser Law;

- Infectious manure excluded;


Waste from forestryexploitation

(02 01 07)

Bark;

Wood, wood waste.

- Natural bark exempt from treatment(composting) and analysis;

- Natural bark or wood may be added, aftershredding, to compost for use on grassland.

Animal tissue waste

(02 02 02)

Bristle and horn waste Including hair from Äscher process;

- May be used only if not in contravention ofthe Animal Carcass Disposal Law or theAnimal Diseases Law3).

Materials unsuitable forconsumption orprocessing

(02 02 03)

Fat residues (Meat and fish processing)

- May be used only if not in contravention ofthe Animal Carcass Disposal Law or theAnimal Diseases Law3);

- For use only in anaerobic treatment plants;

- May be applied to permanent grassland,also in mixtures, only after pasteurisation(70°C, >1 hour).

Sludges from on-siteeffluent treatment

(02 02 04)

Contents of fat separatorsand skimmers

(Meat and fish processing)

Examples of origins:

Abattoirs and meat processing; not mixedwith other effluents;



WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

311




(waste origin)

- For use only in anaerobic treatment plants;


Waste not otherwisespecified

(02 02 99)

Sludges from gelatineproduction;

Gelatine pressing waste;

Feathers;

Stomach and gut contents.


- Sludges for use only if not mixed witheffluent or sludges from other sources.

Sludges from washing,cleaning, peeling,centrifuging andseparation

(02 03 01)

Other sludgy food wastes;

Starch sludges.

(Food processing)

- Application only if not mixed with effluent orsludges from other sources;



(02 03 04)

‘Out of date’ foods andluxury foods;

Canning waste;

Tabacco dust, debris,veins, sludge;

Faulty cigarette batches;

Coffee, tea and cocoaproduction residues;

Oil seed residues.

(Food processing)



(02 03 99)

Sludges from edible fat oroil production;

Blanching soil (degreased);

Flavouring agent residues;

Molasses residues;

Residues from potato,maize, or rice starchproduction.

(Food processing)

- Sludges from edible fat or oil production,

molasses residues, and residues frompotato, maize, or rice starch production maybe applied to permanent grassland, also inmixtures;

- Sludges from edible fat or oil productiononly for use in anaerobic treatment plants.


(02 05 01)

‘Out of date’ foods (Milk processing)




WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

312




(waste origin)


(02 05 99)

Whey (Milk processing)




(02 06 01)

‘Out of date’ foods;

Dough waste.

(Bakery and confectionery)


Wastes from washing,cleaning and mechanicalreduction of raw material

(02 07 01)

Used filters and absorptionmaterials (silica gel),activated soil, activatedcarbon

(Alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverageproduction)

Silica gels not be applied in the dried state;

Must be dug in immediately after application.

Wastes from spiritsdistillation

(02 07 02)

Fruit, cereal and potatoswills;

Distillery sludge

(Alcohol distillery)



(02 07 04)

(Beverage production)

e.g. ‘out of date’ fruit juice


Sludges from on-siteeffluent treatment

(02 03 05, 02 04 03,

02 05 02, 02 06 03,

02 07 05)

(Food and luxury foods/drinks production)

- May be used only if no mixing witheffluents or sludges from other than thespecified sources;




(02 07 99)

Malt draff; malt grain, maltdust;

Hop draff;

Brewery washings andsludge;

Grape skins and grapewashings;

Yeast and yeast residues.

(Alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverageproduction)

- Except for grape skins, may be applied topermanent grassland, also in mixtures.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

313




(waste origin)

Waste bark and cork

(03 01 01, 03 03 01)

Bark (Wood working and processing)

- Separately collected bark, except barkfrom trees and shrubs from road sides, areexempt from treatment and analysis (Art. 3and 4);

- Bark from trees and shrubs from roadsides may only be applied if they complywith the metal limits prescribed in the Bio-Waste Ordinance;

- Natural, untreated materials may beapplied to permanent grassland, also inmixtures.

Saw dust

(03 01 02)

Saw dust and woodshavings

(Wood working and processing, wood fibreand furniture manufacture)

- Saw dust and wood shavings fromuntreated wood may be added tocomposting process of material forapplication on permanent grassland.

Shavings, cuttings, spoilttimber/particleboard/veneer

(03 01 03)

Saw dust and woodshavings;

Wood wool

(Wood working and processing, wood fibreand furniture manufacture)

- Saw dust and wood shavings fromuntreated wood only.

Wastes fromunprocessed textile fibreand other natural fibroussubstances mainly ofvegetable origin

(04 02 01)

Cellulose fibre waste;

Plant fibre waste

(Textile industry)

Wastes fromunprocessed textile fibremainly of animal origin

(04 02 02)

Wool waste - Wool dust and short fibres for use only ifnot in contravention of the Animal CarcassDisposal Law or the Animal Diseases Law3).


(07 05 99)

Medicinal plant residues;

Fungal mycelli;

Funghi substrate residues

- Fungal mycelli from medicine productiononly to be used after individual assessment,and only if there are no medicinal residues.

Solid wastes from primaryfiltration and screening

(19 09 01)

Filtration, cutting and rakingmaterials;

Protein residues

(Drinking water treatment, maintenance ofwater bodies)

Only raking material suitable for use.

Paper and cardboard

(20 01 01)

Waste paper - Addition in small amounts only (ca.10%) toseparately collected bio-wastes or for


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

314




(waste origin)

composting;

- Addition of glossy paper and used wallpaper to separately collected bio-wastes orcomposting is not permitted.

Organic compostablekitchen waste (includingfrying oil and kitchenwaste from canteens andrestaurants) – separatelycollected fractions

(20 01 08)

Kitchen and canteen waste Use of waste from canteens and largekitchens only if not in contravention of theAnimal Carcass Disposal Law or the AnimalDiseases Law3);


Compostable waste

(20 02 01)

Waste from gardens, parksand landscapemaintenance;

Woodland clearance waste;

Plant components ofnursery waste

- Separately collected material, exceptgreenery and shrub cuttings from road sidesor industrial sites, are exempt fromtreatment and analysis (Art. 3 and 4);

- Greenery and shrub cuttings from roadsides or industrial sites, as well as nurseryplant waste, may only be applied if theycomply with the metal limits prescribed inthe Bio-Waste Ordinance;

- Materials may be applied to permanentgrassland, also in mixtures.

Mixed municipal waste

(20 03 01)

Domestic waste (separatelycollected bio-waste)

(Municipal waste)

- In particular, separately collected bio-wastefrom domestic premises and smallbusinesses.

Market waste

(20 03 02)

Market waste - Only separately collected biodegradablewaste;


Separately collected materials may beapplied to permanent grassland, also inmixtures.

- Mud sludges and medicinalmud/clay/soils


- Biodegradable productsfrom renewable resources,as well as wastes fromworking and processingsuch products

Biodegradability must be demonstrated,based on technical Norm.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

315




(waste origin)

- Egg shells - May be used only if not in contravention ofthe Animal Carcass Disposal Law or theAnimal Diseases Law3);

2. Mineral additives (if waste, EAKV/EU Waste catalogue designation)

Off specification calciumcarbonate

(02 04 02)

Carbonate sludge (Sugarbeet processing)


Sludges fromdecarbonation

(19 09 03)

Water softening sludge (Water treatment)


- - Calcium carbonate

- Bentonite

- Rock meal, stone grindingmeal, sand

- Clay

- Materials may be added to bio-wastedestined for application to permanentgrassland, also in mixtures.

Notes:

1) Based on the Ordinance for the introduction of the European Waste Catalogue (EAKV 1996) and LAGA WasteCatalogue 1990

2) Waste types based on LAGA Waste Catalogue3) and appropriate Ordinances


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

316


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

317

F2 QUANTITIES OF WASTE RECYCLED TO LAND

Farm Waste

Farm waste (animal manure, slurry and liquor) is used extensively as a fertiliser on agriculturalland. The annual output from animal husbandry (cattle, pigs, chickens) has been estimated at222 million tonnes (solid and liquid manure) (Table F8). This contains over 1 million tonnes ofnitrogen, which is utilised as fertiliser on agricultural land (Döhler et al., 1999, Döhler, 1998).

Table F8 Animal units and farm waste (fertiliser) production/application to land inGermany (1997) (Döhler et al., 1999)

Animal type Animal units

(Million)

Liquidmanure

(slurry) 1)

(x106 t)

Solidmanure(x106 t)

Liquidmanure

(liquor) 2)

(x106 t)

Fertilisertotal

(x106 t)

Cattle 13.3 94.1 32.6 8.7 135.4

Pigs 2.6 61.6 11.9 4.5 77.9

Poultry ~ 0.2 0.9 7.5 - 8.4

Total 16.1 156.6 52.0 13.2 221.7

Note: Assumed dry solids (DS) content: 1) Cattle 10%, pigs 5%, poultry 15%; 2) 2%

Other, somewhat more detailed data have been collated earlier (presented as tonnage drymatter), together with information on nutrient content as set out in Table F9.

Table F9 Estimated quantities of organic residues recycled to agricultural land inGermany (Eurich-Menden et al., 1995, presented in Döhler, 1998)

Waste type Total quantity(x106t/a DS)

Nutrient (t/a)

N P2O5

Cattle slurry 8.1 397,413 215,400

Pig slurry 1.5 228,384 165,920

Poultry slurry 0.2 17,226 14,080

Cattle solid manure 16.2 266,888 213,510

Pig solid manure 1.7 34,680 42,840

Poultry solid manure 0.5 34,425 42,300

Cattle liquid manure 0.3 40,320 2,240

Pig liquid manure 0.1 17,100 3,420

Total 28.6 1,036,436 699,710Notes: DS = dry substance

* the amount applied to land (3 Mt/a) represents about one third of the total (about 50%is disposed of, and about 10% incinerated).


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

318

Industrial Waste

The recent introduction of the Waste Avoidance and Recycling Act has lead to increasedoffers of organic and mineral waste and by-products from industry to farmers for use asfertilisers and soil improvers on agricultural land.

The increase is expected mainly in the form of compost, i.e. an increase from 1.3 milliontonnes (as dry substance) in 1995 to 40 million tonnes by 2005 has been predicted (Döhler,1998). Thus, apart from solid manure, compost is expected to become the most importantresidue used in agriculture.

Mineral Waste/By-products

With respect to mineral waste and by-products, it has been estimated that at least 3 milliontonnes per year are used in agriculture (Gonser et al. 1999). A summary of the available datain terms of tonnage produced and amounts used in agriculture, where available, is shown inTable F10. Of these, the most significant in terms of tonnage, are from the followingindustries:

• Sugar production (carbonation sludge);

• Construction/maintenance in the water sector (dredging material);

• Mineral extraction industry/quarrying.

Other significant contributions come from the following:

• Chemical industry (ammonium sulphate and lime containing residues);

• Industrial water treatment (water softening sludges);

• Iron and steel production (kiln and converter lime).

Other industries mentioned:

• Coal fired power stations (gypsum, ash);

• Biomass power stations (wood ash);

• Drinking water treatment plants (sludge, bentonite suspensions).

The data, however, are incomplete; in many cases the amount used in agriculture is notknown.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

319

Table F10 Overview of Production and Agricultural Use of Mineral Waste and By-Products (Gonser et al., 1999)

Sector Branch Waste/By-Product Fertiliser Type(DüMV)

BioAbfV1) Production1,000 t/a

Agricultural use1,000 t/a (%)

Reference year(for occurrence

data)

Titanium dioxideproduction

Iron-II-sulfate2) Iron Salts 650 5 (0.8) 1996

Capro-lactam production Ammonium sulfate2) Ammonium Sulphate 267 267 (100) 1996

Soda production Slake lime residues3) Residual lime 77 9 (12) 1996

Chemical Industry

Lime nitrogen conversion Lime residues2,3) Residual lime 78 39 (50) 1996

Power Stations:

- Brown coal Furnace bottom ash 2,560 ND 1996

- Coal/Brown coal Brown coal briquetting fly ash4) Residual lime 120 3 (2.5) 1997

- Coal/Brown coal Fluidised bed ash 260 ND 1996

- Coal/Brown coal TAV – ash (from gastreatment)

60 ND 1996

- Coal/Brown coal REA – gypsum (from gastreatment)

Calcium sulfate 4,900 ND 1996

Energy Production

Bio-mass incineration Grate/furnace bottom ash 80 ND 1997

Rock/Soil 16,000 600 (3.8) 1987

Quarry sand X 6,000 20 (0.3) 1987

Mineral extraction

Stone/rock powder Residual lime 5) X 800 40 (5) 1987

Mineral processing Rock grinding sludge ND ND

Gypsum waste Calcium sulfate 30 3 (10) 1991

Clay and MineralExploitation

Ceramics

Adsorber lime X ND ND

Iron production Foundry lime Foundry lime 6,8806) 55 (0.8) 1993

Converter lime/ ’Thomas’ lime Converter lime 4,6007) 396 (8.6) 1996

‘Thomas’ process phosphate ‘Thomas’ phosphate

Steel production

Furnace slag Converter lime 100-300 ND 1994

Metal Production andProcessing

Foundries Furnace slag ND ND

UndergroundConstruction

Bentonite X ND ND

Fire ExtinguisherMaintenance

Fire extinguisher powderresidues

2 ND 1996

Water Supply Drinking water treatment Decarbonation sludge3) Residual lime X 55 ND 1992


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

320

Sector Branch Waste/By-Product Fertiliser Type(DüMV)

BioAbfV1) Production1,000 t/a

Agricultural use1,000 t/a (%)

Reference year(for occurrence

data)

Fe/Mn sludge3) X 13 ND 1992

Flocculation sludge3) X 42 ND 1992

Water treatment(industrial use)

KZA – decarbonation sludge3) Carbonated lime X 180 60 (33) 1996

HydraulicsEngineering

Dredging spoil8) 2,570 940 (36) 1990-1995

Sugar Industry Carbonation sludge3) Carbonated lime X 820 795 (97) 1996-1997

1) X: waste/by-product permitted as mineral additive in the treatment of bio-waste (BioAbfV - Bio-Waste Ordinance 1998)2) Production and agricultural use of one company (no total amount available)3) Amount presented as dry substance4) Production and agricultural use in the Rhine region (no total amount available)5) Residues from limestone and dolomite processing are permitted as ‘residual lime’6) The production figure relates total blast furnace slag; of this, only a proportion is processed to produce foundry lime7) Total production of converter slag, incl. electro-furnace slag; of this, only a proportion is formed as converter/’Thomas’ lime or ‘Thomas’ phosphate, respectively8) Amount relates to original substance; conversion of m3 to t, assuming an average density of 1.65 t m-3

ND = No Data


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

321

Organic Waste

In order to provide a decision aid for the classification of wastes with respect to their re-usepotentials, the Federal Environment Agency has funded the setting up of a database. Theoriginal aim seems to have been to include material origins, volumes produced and applied toland, and qualitative data. However, it was pointed out that much of the information wasdifficult to obtain or unavailable and still incomplete (Anon, 2000). The database has beenobtained (KTBL, 2000), but does not appear to contain any quantitative data, focusing insteadon qualitative data and information about the potential application of wastes on land, includinginformation about appropriate methods of application. Work is in progress to obtain furtherdata and expand the database with a view to providing a user friendly decision aid for the re-use of waste materials on land.

Concerning organic wastes, the database contains some 300 materials from the followingindustrial sectors and farming:

• Plant production and processing;

• Food production;

• Wood processing;

• Animal husbandry and processing;

• Other industrial and municipal wastes.

Although originally set up to cover biological/organic waste, the database has also beenextended to cover mineral waste/by-products.

It must be stressed that much of the organic waste applied to land is first turned into compostand then applied as such.

Table F 11 includes the only available data on organic waste amounts, other than farm waste,applied to agricultural land, i.e. crop residues, compost, peat, bark products and, forcomparison, sewage sludge.

Table F11 Quantities of organic waste applied to agricultural land (Eurich-Menden etal., 1995, presented in Döhler, 1998)

Nutrient (t/a)Waste type Total quantity(Mt/a DS) N P2O5

Crop residues 18.0 256,175 93,277

Compost 1.3 16,510 8,450

Peat 0.4 3069 -

Bark products 0.3 2,832 -

Sewage sludge 3.0 174,000 141,000


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

322


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

323

F3 QUALITY OF WASTES SPREAD ON LAND

The Database on Organic and Mineral Wastes and Fertilisers (KTBL, 2000) which has beenset up by KTBL and other research organisations (funded by the Federal EnvironmentAgency), focuses on the classification of wastes with respect to their re-use potentials(agricultural, horticultural, forestry) and qualitative data for the waste materials. Qualitativedata are often based on single sample analyses and can, therefore, only give a roughindication of the waste composition/quality.

The database also provides details about the potential application of wastes on land, includinginformation about relevant legislation, physical properties and appropriate methods ofapplication.

The aim of the database is to provide a decision aid for producers and users of wastematerials, as well as those involved in waste processing and distribution, and advisory bodiesengaged in assisting farmers.

The qualitative data that can be extracted from the database are very specific in terms ofwaste types and cannot readily be summarised in terms of wider waste groups from specificindustrial sectors. In addition, different sets of results can only be extracted, tabulatedseparately. Consequently, some examples have been selected for the waste types of interestthat are not already covered by the summarised mineral waste information provided below.Some of these examples extracted from the database (KTBL 1999) have been collated fromseveral data sets to provide a wider range of values and parameters.

Examples of qualitative data for farm animal and other organic wastes, extracted from thisdatabase, are presented in the following tables.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

324

Farm waste

POULTRY MANURE

ID-No. Parameter MIN MEAN MAX Unit n

4 N-total 2.82 5.14 8.39 % DS 75 P-total 1.14 1.98 2.90 % DS 76 K-total 1.55 2.78 4.29 % DS 77 Mg-total 0.45 0.56 0.77 % DS 78 Ca-total 1.65 1.65 1.65 % DS 110 C- total 31.98 % DS 117 pH 5.70 5.80 6.00 - 320 NO3-N-(CaCl2)-

soluble494.62 645.16 881.72 mg/100g DS 3

21 NH4-N-(CaCl2)-soluble

838.71 1096.77 1333.33 mg/100g DS 7

33 Na 1600.00 2000.00 2300.00 mg/kg DS 3111 Water content 43.20 53.50 64.10 % FS 7

PIG MANURE


4 N-total 3.40 3.80 4.20 % DS 25 P- total 1.19 1.72 2.24 % DS 26 K- total 2.08 2.32 2.57 % DS 27 Mg- total 0.48 0.72 0.96 % DS 28 Ca- total 3.10 3.89 4.61 % DS 210 C- total 46.80 48.66 50.52 % DS 226 Cd 0.20 0.40 0.50 mg/kg DS 227 Hg 0.01 0.02 0.03 mg/kg DS 228 Zn 406.00 569.00 732.00 mg/kg DS 229 Cu 395.00 395.50 396.00 mg/kg DS 230 Cr 5.20 6.50 7.70 mg/kg DS 231 Ni 6.90 7.20 7.40 mg/kg DS 232 Pb 4.60 6.00 7.40 mg/kg DS 2111 Water content 73.90 76.80 79.70 % FS 2


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

325

DAIRY CATTLE – LIQUID MANURE


4 N-total 2.48 4.83 7.67 % DS 125 P- total 0.55 0.87 1.42 % DS 126 K- total 3.39 5.03 6.67 % DS 1221 NH4-N-(CaCl2)-

soluble1361.39 2475.25 3465.35 mg/100g

DS12

111 Water content 77.00 91.92 96.10 % FS 12

BEEF CATTLE – LIQUID MANURE


4 N-total 3.33 4.95 12.27 % DS 275 P-total 0.80 1.12 2.24 % DS 206 K-total 3.39 4.83 9.13 % DS 207 Mg-total 0.52 0.80 1.66 % DS 148 Ca-total 1.43 1.93 2.24 % DS 410 C-total 43.60 % DS 111 Ash (550°C) 63.64 70.95 76.32 % DS 417 pH 7.08 7.26 7.60 - 420 NO3-N-(CaCl2)-

soluble0.20 mg/100g DS 1

21 NH4-N-(CaCl2)-soluble

1.84 4.36 9.54 mg/100g DS 6

22 P-(lactate)-soluble 465.47 mg/100g DS 123 K-(lactate)-soluble 867.57 mg/100g DS 124 Mg-(CaCl2)-soluble 81.79 mg/100g DS 126 Cd 0.20 0.20 0.20 mg/kg DS 327 Hg 0.02 0.07 0.10 mg/kg DS 328 Zn 125.00 143.00 177.00 mg/kg DS 329 Cu 27.00 31.70 35.00 mg/kg DS 330 Cr 2.90 5.30 6.50 mg/kg DS 331 Ni 2.10 3.90 5.50 mg/kg DS 332 Pb 5.50 6.40 7.20 mg/kg DS 334 As 0.62 mg/kg DS 135 Tl 0.18 mg/kg DS 136 Se 0.49 mg/kg DS 1111 Water content 89.40 90.00 90.80 % FS 3


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

326

BEEF CATTLE – SOLID MANURE


4 N-total 2.00 3.20 13.93 % DS 205 P-total 0.41 0.84 4.82 % DS 206 K-total 1.24 3.20 6.32 % DS 207 Mg-total 0.22 0.59 1.55 % DS 98 Ca-total 1.94 3.02 5.26 % DS 410 C-total 44.07 47.21 49.65 % DS 411 Ash (550°C) 58.87 83.68 99.60 % DS 917 pH 8.17 8.54 9.00 - 921 NH4-N-(CaCl2)-

soluble333.33 1000.00 mg/100g DS 11

26 Cd 0.10 0.30 0.40 mg/kg DS 427 Hg 0.01 0.04 0.10 mg/kg DS 428 Zn 48.00 189.00 301.00 mg/kg DS 429 Cu 13.50 64.40 152.00 mg/kg DS 430 Cr 5.00 6.30 8.40 mg/kg DS 431 Ni 4.00 4.80 5.80 mg/kg DS 432 Pb 7.90 10.20 14.50 mg/kg DS 433 Na 4300.00 mg/kg DS 1111 Water content 68.00 78.46 86.90 % FS 20

Waste from food and drinks preparation:

VEGETABLE WASTE


4 N-total 3.00 3.80 4.90 % DS 35 P-total 0.23 0.37 0.49 % DS 36 K-total 0.42 0.58 0.83 % DS 37 Mg-total 0.36 0.40 0.60 % DS 38 Ca-total 2.05 3.02 3.69 % DS 310 C-total 50.00 55.00 60.00 % DS 311 Ash (550°C) 82.40 % DS 117 pH 6.40 - 118 Salt content 1.49 g/l S 126 Cd 0.15 0.35 0.50 mg/kg DS 327 Hg 0.01 0.01 0.01 mg/kg DS 328 Zn 70.00 85.00 100.00 mg/kg DS 329 Cu 3.00 5.20 8.50 mg/kg DS 330 Cr 1.05 2.25 4.80 mg/kg DS 331 Ni 1.50 3.20 5.00 mg/kg DS 332 Pb 1.00 1.80 2.00 mg/kg DS 3111 Water content 92.80 % FS 1


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

327

Blood and gut contents from abattoir waste:

ABATTOIR WASTE - Dataset A


4 N-total 1.83 2.39 2.72 % DS 55 P-total 0.47 0.51 0.57 % DS 56 K-total 0.53 0.73 0.93 % DS 57 Mg-total 0.10 0.16 0.21 % DS 58 Ca-total 0.40 0.85 1.32 % DS 510 C-total 43.50 43.80 44.10 % DS 517 pH 5.40 5.80 6.70 - 620 NO3-N-(CaCl2)-soluble 0.62 1.11 2.47 mg/100g

DS6

21 NH4-N-(CaCl2)- soluble 55.56 141.98 308.64 mg/100gDS

6

22 P-(lactate)- soluble 149.38 306.91 366.67 mg/100gDS

6

23 K-(lactate)- soluble 307.41 558.46 778.76 mg/100gDS

6

24 Mg-(CaCl2)- soluble 69.60 113.40 169.20 mg/100gDS

5

28 Zn 570.00 mg/kg DS 129 Cu 150.00 mg/kg DS 1111 Water content 80.20 83.80 86.80 % FS 5

ABATTOIR WASTE - Dataset B4 N-total 8.80 9.20 9.60 % DS 25 N-total 2.38 6.73 11.09 % DS 26 K-total 0.08 0.25 0.42 % DS 27 Mg- total 0.06 0.18 0.30 % DS 28 Ca- total 2.52 7.06 11.59 % DS 214 Mn 8.00 15.00 22.00 mg/kg DS 228 Zn 79.00 117.00 155.00 mg/kg DS 229 Cu 7.00 18.50 30.00 mg/kg DS 2111 Water content 4.40 5.10 5.80 % FS 2


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

328

BLOOD


4 N-total 11.40 % DS 15 P- total 1.58 % DS 16 K- total 0.25 % DS 17 Mg- total 0.24 % DS 18 Ca- total 2.59 % DS 114 Mn 17.00 mg/kg DS 128 Zn 32.00 mg/kg DS 129 Cu 6.00 mg/kg DS 1111 Water content 7.30 % FS 1

Wood waste, plant and other plant materials:

WOOD WASTE


4 N-total 0.02 0.61 1.20 % DS 25 P-total 0.01 0.03 0.04 % DS 26 K-total 0.03 0.18 0.33 % DS 27 Mg-total 0.01 0.04 0.06 % DS 28 Ca-total 0.09 0.50 0.30 % DS 211 Ash (550°C) - 99.53 - % DS 112 B - 2.31 - mg/kg DS 117 pH - 4.98 - - 126 Cd 0.08 0.30 0.40 mg/kg DS 427 Hg 0.01 0.10 0.33 mg/kg DS 528 Zn 14.70 80.18 203.00 mg/kg DS 429 Cu 4.00 23.88 73.00 mg/kg DS 530 Cr 0.60 5.50 18.00 mg/kg DS 431 Ni 0.80 3.75 11.00 mg/kg DS 432 Pb 0.60 29.90 76.00 mg/kg DS 433 Na - 0.01 - mg/kg DS 134 As 1.00 1.25 1.49 mg/kg DS 237 Cl 60.00 1329.25 2558.0

0mg/kg DS 4

75 Benzo(a)pyrene - 1810.00 - µg/kg DS 176 Pentachlorophenol - 1900.00 - µg/kg DS 1110 Specific weight - 70.00 - g/l FS 1111 Water content - 17.00 - % FS 1


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

329

Textile waste:

WOOL DUST


4 N-total 6.67 % DS 15 P- total 0.08 % DS 16 K- total 0.63 % DS 17 Mg- total 0.19 % DS 18 Ca- total 0.50 % DS 19 S- total 0.73 % DS 111 Ash (550°C) 60.81 % DS 112 B 15.84 mg/kg DS 113 Mo 0.53 mg/kg DS 114 Mn 247.13 mg/kg DS 115 Fe 9456.08 mg/kg DS 116 Basisity 2.10 % DS 117 pH 6.90 - 126 Cd 0.72 mg/kg DS 127 Hg 0.03 mg/kg DS 128 Zn 214.86 mg/kg DS 129 Cu 20.00 mg/kg DS 130 Cr 11.51 mg/kg DS 131 Ni 7.26 mg/kg DS 132 Pb 10.00 mg/kg DS 134 As 1.47 mg/kg DS 135 Tl 0.03 mg/kg DS 138 o.p'-DDD 1.00 µg/kg DS 139 o.p'-DDE 1.00 µg/kg DS 140 o.p'-DDT 1.00 µg/kg DS 141 p.p'-DDD 1.00 µg/kg DS 142 p.p'-DDE 3.00 µg/kg DS 143 p.p'-DDT 2.00 µg/kg DS 144 Aldrin 1.00 µg/kg DS 145 Endrin 1.00 µg/kg DS 146 Dieldrin 2.00 µg/kg DS 147 Heptachlor 1.00 µg/kg DS 148 alpha-HCH 3.00 µg/kg DS 149 beta-HCH 7.00 µg/kg DS 150 gamma-HCH 0.26 µg/kg DS 151 delta-HCH 1.00 µg/kg DS 153 Hexachlorbenzene 1.00 µg/kg DS 154 PCB-28 1.00 µg/kg DS 155 PCB-52 1.00 µg/kg DS 156 PCB-101 3.00 µg/kg DS 157 PCB-138 5.00 µg/kg DS 158 PCB-153 5.00 µg/kg DS 159 PCB-180 4.00 µg/kg DS 1


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

330

ID-No. Parameter MIN MEAN MAX Unit n64 Benz(b)fluroanthene 80.00 µg/kg DS 165 Benzo(ghi)perylene 40.00 µg/kg DS 166 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 10.00 µg/kg DS 169 Fluoranthene 70.00 µg/kg DS 174 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 10.00 µg/kg DS 175 Benzo(a)pyrene 10.00 µg/kg DS 1109 AOX 112.00 mg/kg DS 1111 Water content 6.90 % FS 1

COTTON WASTE

ID-No.

Parameter MIN MEAN MAX Unit n

4 N-total 0.50 0.92 1.20 % DS 45 P-total 0.53 % DS 17 Mg-total 0.24 % DS 18 Ca-total 1.01 % DS 110 C-total 31.70 % DS 111 Ash (550°C) 69.60 % DS 112 B 81.30 mg/kg DS 113 Mo 0.52 mg/kg DS 114 Mn 68.30 mg/kg DS 115 Fe 543.00 mg/kg DS 117 pH 2.80 - 126 Cd 0.05 0.21 0.45 mg/kg DS 427 Hg 0.01 0.06 1.00 mg/kg DS 428 Zn 15.30 30.00 45.70 mg/kg DS 429 Cu 2.40 3.65 5.30 mg/kg DS 430 Cr 0.90 1.26 2.43 mg/kg DS 431 Ni 0.80 1.65 2.80 mg/kg DS 432 Pb 3.30 6.30 8.50 mg/kg DS 434 As 1.80 mg/kg DS 1


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

331

Wastes from the leather and tannery industry:

LEATHER POWDER/DUST


4 N-total 3.00 8.10 13.30 % DS 326 Cd 0.27 2.64 5.00 mg/kg DS 227 Hg 0.03 0.03 0.03 mg/kg DS 228 Zn 94.80 99.9 105.00 mg/kg DS 229 Cu 10.00 66.05 122.10 mg/kg DS 230 Cr 894.00 7959.70 16985.00 mg/kg DS 331 Ni 5.90 mg/kg DS 132 Pb 10.00 25.20 40.40 mg/kg DS 234 As 0.70 mg/kg DS 1111 Water content 11.10 % FS 1Note: DS = dry substance FS = fresh substance

Mineral Waste Review

Although details are also contained in the waste database (KTL 2000), quality data for mineralwaste materials has been gathered in an extensive research project, funded by the FederalEnvironment Agency, and summarised in a research report (Gonser et al., 1999). Thesummarised data are presented below.

The data are presented for 10 industrial sectors (with sub-sections), as follows:

1. Waste incineration;

2. Chemical industry;

3. Energy production;

4. Clay and mineral exploitation;

5. Metal production and processing;

6. Underground construction;

7. Fire extinguisher maintenance;

8. Water supply;

9. Hydraulics engineering; and

10. Sugar industry.

The qualitative data are presented as follows:

a) Physico-chemical parameters (water content, ash content, conductivity, pH) (Table F12);


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

332

b) Nutrients (macro-nutrients: total nitrogen, ammonia nitrogen, total phosphorus, potassium,calcium, total sulfur; and micro-nutrients: iron and manganese) (Table F13);

c) Heavy metal/metalloid content (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury, nickel,lead, thallium, zinc) (Table F14) and

d) Organic contaminants (PCB, PAH, benzo-(a)-pyrene, PCDD/PCDF, AOX) (Table F15).

There are clearly many gaps in the data, i.e. no analyses available for many types of wasteand data missing for certain parameters. Where data are available, the number of samplesanalysed are relatively small, often only one sample. Nevertheless, the data can provide anindication of the quality of the different types of waste, although in some cases, where severalsamples have been analysed, the results vary widely and can only indicate a very broadrange of values.

An evaluation of the available data for heavy metal/metalloid contamination of wastes againstthe values prescribed in the Bio-Waste Ordinance and the Sewage Sludge Ordinance ispresented in Table F16. This indicates a relatively small number of waste types (6 out of 25)complying with the standards set for biological/organic wastes, whilst the majority of wastes(19 out of 25) exceed one or more of these heavy metal/metalloid standards. Of the latter, 8waste types also exceed the much higher values set for sewage sludge.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

333

Table F12 Physico-chemical Parameters of Examined Mineral Wastes and By-Products (Gonser et al., 1999)

Physico-chemical ParameterSector Branch Waste/By-Product

Waste/By- Product

DetailWater Content

%Ash

% DSConductivity

mS cm-1pH-Value

Sewage sludgeincineration

Bottom ash andslag

Data setsRange

40.30-0.50

50.13-1.0

28,600-10,300

212.1-12.2

Waste Incineration

Municipal wasteincineration

REA – gypsum(gas treatment)

Data setsRange

810.0-17.9

815.0-20.6

0ND

0ND

Titanium dioxideproduction

Iron-II-sulfate Data setsRange

13.0

0ND

0ND

13.0

Capro-lactamproduction

Ammonium sulfate Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

Soda production Slake limeresidues

Data setsRange

64.0-20.0

117.3

0ND

112.5

Acetyleneproduction

Carbide sludge Data setsRange

644.3-67.5

224.6-28.5

0ND

112.4

Chemical Industry

Lime/nitrogenconversion

Lime residues Data setsRange

118.0-27.0

0ND

0ND

0ND

Furnace bottomash

Coal/Brown coal Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

Brown coalbriquetting fly ash

Brown coal(lignite)

Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

Coal (anthracite) Data setsRange

0ND

204.3-20.9

22,500-8,110

311.9-13.3

Fly ash

Brown coal Data setsRange

0ND

290.1-3.0

0ND

0ND

Fluidised bed –bottom ash

Coal Data setsRange

0ND

70.33-4.0

12,800

111.5

Coal Data setsRange

0ND

80.33-20.0

21,030-1,830

210.8-11.9

Fluidised bed – flyash


0ND

50.88-16.1

0ND

0ND

SAV – ash (fromgas treatment)

Coal Data setsRange

11.0-4.0

0ND

0ND

0ND

Coal Data setsRange

0ND

15.7

0ND

0ND

TAV – ash (fromgas treatment)


20.2

0ND

0ND

0ND

Coal Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

Energy Production Coal fired powerstations

REA – gypsum(from gastreatment) Brown coal Data sets

Range3

13.3-23.40

ND0

ND1

6.8


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

334


Waste/By- Product

DetailWater Content

%Ash

% DSConductivity

mS cm-1pH-Value

Desulphurisationproduct

Coal Data setsRange

150.06-0.67

0ND

0ND

0ND

Forest wood Data setsRange

20.30-15.4

23.0-44.0

211,000-116,000

28.9-13.6

Residual wood Data setsRange

190.10-54.5

190.10-46.7

0ND

217.9-13.3

Grate/furnacebottom ash

Waste wood Data setsRange

0ND

100.80-5.2

0ND

0ND


0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

Residual wood Data setsRange

10.10

12.9

0ND

28.9-13.9

Bio-massincineration

Fly ash


0ND

815.2-34.1

0ND

0ND

Mineral extraction Stone/rock powder Data setsRange

30.1-17.4

60.9-2.4

0ND

68.0-9.0

Mineral processing Rock grindingsludge

Data setsRange

126.4-54.6

11.2-31.9

0ND

0ND

‘White’ (ceramic)Sludge

Data setsRange

119.9-73.5

11.0-10.4

0ND

0ND


Ceramics

Adsorber lime (gastreatment)

Data setsRange

11.7

21.6-2.7

0ND

17.5

Iron production Foundry lime Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

Converter lime/’Thomas’ lime

Data setsRange

112.6

0ND

0ND

0ND

Steel production

‘Thomas’ processphosphate

Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

Foundry wastesand

Data setsRange

12.3

13.1

114.6

15.4

Furnace slag Data setsRange

14.8-9.7

10.10

0ND

0ND

Foundries

Magnesium oxidedust

Data setsRange

20.54-0.83

13.3

1163

110.3

Metal Productionand Processing

Aluminiumproduction

‘Red’ sludge/mud Data setsRange

140.0

85.5-12.0

0ND

0ND

Surface Treatment Phosphatisingsludge

Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

Paper Production Bottom ash frompaper sludgeincineration

Data setsRange

242.9-64.4

10.20-40.7

0ND

29.2-12.8


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

335


Waste/By- Product

DetailWater Content

%Ash

% DSConductivity

mS cm-1pH-Value

Bottom ash fromde-inking sludgeincineration

Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND


Bentonite Data setsRange

583.7-91.5

30.60-10.0

31,200-,410

510.4-12.8


Fire extinguisherpowder residues

ABC – powder Data setsRange

20.70-4.7

162.7

0ND

24.3-5.1

Decarbonationsludge

Data setsRange

630.0-98.0

155.5

0ND

18.4-9.0

Decarbonationpellets

Data setsRange

120.0-40.0

0ND

0ND

0ND

Fe/Mn sludge Data setsRange

1143.8-99.9

10.50-57.4

1456

36.0-12.9

Drinking watertreatment

Flocculationsludge

Data setsRange

935.0-99.9

60.50-59.0

0ND

56.0-11.7

KZA – sludge(decarbonation)

Data setsRange

61.6-55.0

0ND

0ND

57.0-11.1

Water Supply



Data setsRange

11.0-2.0

0ND

0ND

0ND

River water Data setsRange

1313.3-64.3

1350.30-41.0

0ND

17.4


Dredging spoils/Sediments

Lake water Data setsRange

268.0-85.0

27.0-25.0

0ND

35.4-8.8

Sugar Industry Carbonationsludge

Data setsRange

830.0-55.0

35.0-12.5

0ND

0ND

Note: ND = no data


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

336

Table F13 Nutrient Contents of Examined Mineral Wastes and By-Products (Gonser et al., 1999)

Macro Nutrient Micro NutrientSector Branch Waste/By- Product

Waste/By-ProductDetail

N-total% DS

NH4-N

% DSP-total% DS

K-total% DS

Mg-total% DS

Ca-total% DS

S-total% DS

Femg kg-1

DS

Mnmg kg-1

DSSewagesludgeincineration

Bottom ash andslag

Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

55.0-8.0

11.1

11.3

57.2-16.1

50.50-1.2

519,600-125,000

110,800

WasteIncineration

Municipalwasteincineration


Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

8<0.01-0.07

80.02-0.07

8<0.01-0.01

823.2-25.3

818.2-20.0

8559-979

863.1-126

Titaniumdioxideproduction

Iron-II-sulfat Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

10.72

10.31

0ND

1201,000

0ND


Ammoniumsulfate

Data setsRange

121.0

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

124.0

0ND

0ND

Sodaproduction

Slake limeresidue

Data setsRange

1<0.01

1<0.01

20.03-0.05

30.35-0.53

50.63-3.3

50.75-38.2

10.47

38,690-18,300

2397-968

Acetyleneproduction


0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

5<0.01-

3.4

643.0-53.0

2<0.01-0.06

0ND

0ND

ChemicalIndustry

Limenitrogenconversion


10.50-1.5

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

135.0

10.20-1.2

0ND

0ND

Furnace bottomash

Coal/ Browncoal

Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

1<0.04

30.08-4.6

30.30-4.2

30.43-28.6

30.04-1.6

34,890-

489,000

1ND-

1,550Brown coalbriquetting flyash

Brown coal(lignite)

Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

1<0.22

60.08-0.42

62.9-7.2

632.2-43.0

63.7-6.0

670,600-105,000

63,080-3,870

Coal(anthracite)

Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

2<0.01-0.01

140.08-4.2

140.05-3.8

140.19-26.0

140.03-5.4

305,950-

127,000

1834.7-571

Fly ash


0ND

0ND

21<0.01-

1.1

430.08-4.2

900.30-6.1

911.4-28.6

900.2-6.0

9110,500-244,000

30218-2,120

EnergyProduction

Coal firedpowerstations

Fluidised bed -fly ash

Coal Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

30.10-0.34

50.58-3.1

50.60-1.5

57.2-28.6

52.0-8.0

721,000-96,900

5494-916


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

337

Sector Branch Waste/By- Product


Macro Nutrient Micro Nutrient

Coal Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

7<0.01-0.44

80.41-6.6

80.60-1.6

85.1-33.7

91.5-6.1

928,400-105,000

5466-876

Fluidised bed -bottom ash


0ND

0ND

40.03-0.09

60.10-2.6

61.3-6.2

614.6-30.3

6-2.8-4.4

638,400-159,000

5774-3,320


Coal Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

1ND-0.52

50.12-1.2

5<0.48-

1.8

914.3-42.9

82.9-26.8

32,100-35,000

0ND

Coal Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

10.96

30.42-2.5

30.28-1.8

47.2-29.5

32.5-11.6

314,000-175,000

1178



0ND

0ND

20.13-<0.22

10.17-0.25

42.9-9.0

429.3-43.0

22.0-6.8

455,900-168,000

32,670-3,100

Coal Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

125.3

117.7

0ND

0ND

REA – gypsum(from gastreatment) Brown coal Data sets

Range0

ND0

ND0

ND0

ND2

0.03-0.23

222.7-26.6

117.4

21,810-3,360

214.0-74.0


Coal Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

160.21-0.38

160.28-0.40

160.28-0.46

166.0-35.0

161.3-11.5

1614,900-81,800

15196-


0ND

0ND

30.39-1.5

202.4-10.0

201.0-5.3

2021.0-49.0

170.13-1.8

0ND

21,000-30,000

Residualwood

Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

210.11-1.4

220.17-14.3

220.25-8.8

220.90-32.0

0ND

212,900-45,000

221,100-22,900



0ND

0ND

80.10-0.66

80.47-3.6

81.3-1.9

810.7-25.2

80.07-4.1

820,000-106,000

8800-2,800


0ND

0ND

0ND

814.2-30.2

80.75-3.1

84.5-21.6

17.4

0ND

0ND

Residualwood

Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

10.44

29.1-17.0

21.7-2.3

27.9-8.8

0ND

24,300-8,000

24,600-13,400


Fly ash


6<0.01-0.28

0ND

60.09-0.46

62.6-7.7

60.24-1.3

64.0-17.9

61.2-3.8

62,900-10,000

6400-700


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

338




Mineralextraction

Stone/rockpowder

Data setsRange

20.03-0.10

1<0.01

19<0.01-0.83

370.01-3.3

380.01-13.0

350.89-38.9

70.52-0.20

35172-

97,900

35109-2,320

Mineralprocessing

Rock grindingsludge

Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

10.42

11.8

0ND

0ND

0ND

‘White’ (ceramic)sludge

Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

0ND

11.1-3.5

10.29-1.3

11.1-12.0

0ND

1501-3,150

163.1-820

Clay andMineralExploitation

Ceramics

Adsorber lime(gas treatment)

Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

10.77

139.0

0ND

0ND

0ND

Ironproduction

Foundry lime Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

Converterlime/’Thomas’lime

Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

50.20-0.53

3<0.01-0.03

91.3-5.2

1031.3-37.9

20.10

216,000-166,000

131,000

Steelproduction

‘Thomas’phosphate

Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

35.3-6.5

20.02-0.13

21.4-1.6

433.7-40.6

0ND

3120,000-124,000

315,500-15,600

Foundry wastesand

Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

1<0.01

10.01

0ND

1420

17.8


0ND

0ND

10.01

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

14,740-

104,000

0ND

Foundries

Magnesiumoxide dust

Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

10.03

10.53

239.4-48.2

20.30-0.67

10.56

223,400-251,000

1740

MetalProductionandProcessing

Aluminiumproduction

‘Red’sludge/mud

Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

70.06-0.27

60.03-0.05

40.02-0.08

70.43-2.5

80.07-0.20

8175,000-367-000

689.6-348

SurfaceTreatment

Phosphatisationsludge

Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

14.2

0ND

0ND

122.8

0ND

1203,000

111,500


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

339




Ash from papersludgeincineration

Data setsRange

2<0.10-0.58

1<0.02

20.04-0.70

20.20-5.5

20.26-1.6

23.4-25.9

0ND

12,900-26,000

0ND

PaperProduction

Ash from de-inking sludgeincineration

Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

0ND

10.66-1.2

12.4-3.4

110.0-21.5

10.20-0.40

17,000-14,000

0ND



10.06

20.09-0.10

30.04-0.09

40.21-0.58

40.06-1.4

40.64-8.4

0ND

0ND

0ND

FireExtinguisherMaintenance


ABC -powder

Data setsRange

411.1-15.5

40.60-13.2

310.6-16.5

10.02

20.05-0.09

20.19-0.89

35.2-9.4

0ND

0ND

Decarbonationsludge

Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

10.13

2ND-1.0

50.21-5.5

101.4-39.7

0ND

510,800-400,000

41,100-36,000


Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

10.05

21.0-39.8

0ND

230.0-8,790

210.0-899


20.13-0.47

0ND

9<0.01-

4.9

14<0.01-0.36

180.04-6.7

190.40-34.2

70.23-7.9

2087.0-

560,000

201.0-

173,000

Drinkingwatertreatment

Flocculationsludge

Data setsRange

30.72-5.0

20.14-0.45

30.14-2.6

50.01-8.3

50.11-1.8

50.27-38.2

20.22-0.30

760.0-

560,000

710.0-

151,000KZA – sludge(decarbonation)

Data setsRange

30.02-0.20

0ND

5<0.01-

1.0

30.02-0.42

40.30-2.4

415.7-37.9

10.26

2213-

35,000

2200-5,000

Water Supply

Watertreatment(industrialuse) Lime pellets Data sets

Range0

ND0

ND1

<0.01-0.35

1<0.01-0.25

10.06-0.60

130.7-39.3

0ND

169.9-1,400

1100-2,000


10.30

10.01

10.14

10.36

10.40

0ND

0ND

2471,100-

138,000

23539.0-5,600




30.03-2.0

0ND

10.04-0.64

10.10-0.99

10.13-1.6

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND


Data setsRange

50.30-0.60

0ND

90.33-0.74

10.08

90.24-2.4

921.5-37.9

0ND

0ND

0ND

Note: ND = no data


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

340

Table F14 Heavy Metal Contents of Examined Mineral Wastes and By-Products (Gonser et al., 1999)

Heavy MetalsSector Branch Waste/By-Product

Waste/By-ProductDetail As

mg kg-1

DS

Cdmg kg-1

DS

Crmg kg-1

DS

Cumg kg-1

DS

Hgmg kg-1

DS

Nimg kg-1

DS

Pbmg kg-1 DS

Tlmg kg-1

DS

Znmg kg-1 DS

SewagesludgeIncineration

Bottom ash andslag

Data setsRange

28.8-12.4

16.0

1437

1998

40.10-13.7

1165

1245

0ND

22,200-2,410

WasteIncineration

Municipalwasteincineration


Data setsRange

80.05-2.2

60.50-9.9

86.5-22.0

87.5-14.0

81.9-2.9

89.0-16.0

863.8-275

40.50

845.0-87.5

Titaniumdioxideproduction

Iron-II-sulfate Data setsRange

0ND

1<0.10

1<10.3

1<1.0

1<0.10

0ND

1<5.2

0ND

0ND


Ammoniumsulfate

Data setsRange

1<1.0

0ND

11.0

1<1.0

11.0

1<1.0

1<1.0

0ND

0ND

Sodaproduction

Slake limeresidues

Data setsRange

23.8-8.0

20.1-0.35

33.8-15.0

310.0-22.0

30.01-0.09

47.5-21.0

48.1-53.1

0ND

340.0-61.0

Acetyleneproduction


0ND

40.04-1.2

0ND

23.0-5.1

40.02-0.22

56.8-36.9

54.6-113

40.73-1.8

123.0

ChemicalIndustry

Lime/nitrogenconversion


0ND

10.35

0ND

13.9

1<0.20

0ND

11.3

0ND

19.0

Furnace bottomash

Coal/Browncoal

Data setsRange

122.0-112

50.08-6.5

518-830

52.2-410

4<0.01-

14

517.0-410

52.3-360

0ND

517.0-1,100

Brown coalbriquetting flyash

Brown coal(lignite)

Data setsRange

312.0

30.40-0.0

219.0-21.0

0ND

30.40-0.70

0ND

311.0-15.0

0ND

334.0-110

Coal(anthracite)

Data setsRange

1910.4-528

210.30-19.1

2014.4-248

2233.5-692

70.02-2.0

2147.6-660

2110.1-2,060

26.2-12.8

2258.5-2,400

Fly ash


33<0.01-

190

36<0.01-

517

44<0.05-

704

422.0-782

34<0.01-54.5

413.0-83.0

42<0.01-342

110.10-32.7

46<0.07-1,800

Fluidised bed -bottom ash

Coal Data setsRange

527.6-60.5

50.50-6.0

557.3-194

558.7-120

31.0

547.1-209

51.0-32.3

0ND

578.8-330

EnergyProduction

Coal firedpower stations

Fluidised bed -fly ash

Coal Data setsRange

518.9-49.2

53.0-8.0

558.4-176

516.9-166

51.0

551.1-176

54.1-134

0ND

548.3-488


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

341



mg kg-1

DS

Cdmg kg-1

DS

Crmg kg-1

DS

Cumg kg-1

DS

Hgmg kg-1

DS

Nimg kg-1

DS

Pbmg kg-1 DS

Tlmg kg-1

DS

Znmg kg-1 DS


37.0-37.5

40.48-5.4

412.0-156

42.4-71.1

30.35-1.0

415.0-45.0

41.0-98.0

0ND

424.8-109


Coal Data setsRange

10.40-360

50.1-5.0

43.0-60.0

43.0-80.0

3<0.10-10.0

51.4-125

54.0-550

0ND

415.0-120

Coal Data setsRange

1124

12.5

133.0

1329

11.6

173.0

1239

0ND

1342



0ND

20.29-0.30

229.2-29.3

211.2

0ND

22.4

26.9-7.0

0ND

227.5-27.6

Coal Data setsRange

30.33-5.0

40.02-0.53

40.70-45.6

30.60-6.7

40.04-1.4

40.11-10.8

40.08-11.9

0ND

44.7-58.3

REA – gypsum(from gastreatment)


10.60-2.5

30.05-0.50

21.0-5.0

21.0-4.0

10.40-1.5

21.0-5.0

33.0-40.0

0ND

314.6-130


Coal Data setsRange

1515.9-104

150.33-2.5

1537.0-182

15164-400

150.36-2.1

15122-252

1548.0-313

0ND

1564.0-430


182.5-11.4

200.10-12.0

313.0-133

2067.0-950

2<0.50

320.0-110

193.5-130

0ND

199.0-2,200

Residualwood

Data setsRange

122.8-46.7

13.3-13.0

2216.0-795

2243.0-1,280

1<0.50

518.0-235

410.0-1,400

0ND

2216.0-1,610



84.0-40.0

80.80-190

8150-730

8240-1,500

110.0

8150-240

8440-5,300

0ND

8600-22,000


89.9-0.3.0

844.5-136

0ND

8289-656

0ND

0ND

8464-2,960

0ND

814,400-42,400

Residualwood

Data setsRange

16.5

0ND

258.0-101

2370-1,450

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

21,420-6,200


Fly ash


60.80-280

660.0-630

6110-820

6340-530

21.3-4.0

643.0-170

6900-63,000

0ND

64,000-

178,000


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

342



mg kg-1

DS

Cdmg kg-1

DS

Crmg kg-1

DS

Cumg kg-1

DS

Hgmg kg-1

DS

Nimg kg-1

DS

Pbmg kg-1 DS

Tlmg kg-1

DS

Znmg kg-1 DS

Mineralextraction

Stone/rockpowder

Data setsRange

3<0.05-

2.5

18<0.10-

5.0

200.20-2,040

381.0-720

10<0.01-

2.7

200.60-2,760

190.60-625

2<0.10-0.15

383.5-1,400

Mineralprocessing

Rock grindingsludge

Data setsRange

11.6

11.6

0ND

0ND

11.6

0ND

0ND

0ND

150,600

‘White’ (ceramic)Sludge

Data setsRange

11.0-11.0

10.10-1.1

11.8-34.0

117.0-81.0

10.02-0.30

11.0-5.0

165.0-504

0ND

131.0-400


Ceramics

Adsorber lime(gas treatment0

Data setsRange

10.15

13.2

27.8-89.0

210.0-12.0

20.10-1.4

23.2-13.0

29.8-29.0

130.0

212.0-40.0

Iron production Foundry lime Data setsRange

0ND

1<0.10-0.35

222.0-217

12.0-18.0

1<0.01-0.14

1<0.50-

4.0

11.0-29.0

0ND

13.0-166

Converter lime/’Thomas’ lime

Data setsRange

0ND

40.02-0.09

6727-2,800

58.9-39.0

4<0.01-0.16

4<0.50-24.0

52.0-41.0

20.04-10.0

510.0-99.0

Steelproduction

‘Thomas’processphosphate

Data setsRange

12<0.01-

5.5

12<0.10-

3.3

15835-6,500

155.0-152

20.04

12<0.50-

120

133.0-90.0

1<0.10-1.5

143.0-390

Foundry wastesand

Data setsRange

10.22

0ND

10.76

12.2

0ND

0ND

12.2

0ND

173.0


0ND

0ND

1240-909

111.9-111

0ND

11.1-122

15.4-30.2

0ND

11.1-438

Foundries

Magnesiumoxide dust

Data setsRange

112.0

10.34

1240

1335

0ND

0ND

1260

10.60

110,600

MetalProduction andProcessing

Aluminiumproduction

‘Red’sludge/mud

Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

768.4-2,670

65.0

0ND

65.0-25.0

6100-263

0ND

65.0-33.0

SurfaceTreatment

Phosphatisationsludge

Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

0ND

147.0

0ND

1190

10.60

0ND

11,200

Ash from papersludgeincineration

Data setsRange

21.4-8.0

1<0.30-

4.4

152.0-71.0

157.0-299

1<0.10-

1.1

120.0-42.0

1125-166

0ND

1264-808

PaperProduction

Ash from de-inking sludgeincineration

Data setsRange

10.50-7.4

11.0-2.0

145.0-90.1

1260-400

1<0.05-0.15

122,0-57.1

160.1-160

0ND

1340-691


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

343



mg kg-1

DS

Cdmg kg-1

DS

Crmg kg-1

DS

Cumg kg-1

DS

Hgmg kg-1

DS

Nimg kg-1

DS

Pbmg kg-1 DS

Tlmg kg-1

DS

Znmg kg-1 DS



45.2-83.5

30.27-1.5

48.0-271

519.0-188

4<0.05-

2.1

44.0-165

410.0-447

1<0.05-0<0.50

441.0-1,180

FireExtinguisherMaintenance


ABC -powder

Data setsRange

211.0-11.6

40.84-3.0

34.8-11.5

55.0-92.0

40.05-0.30

31.5-5.2

37.9-14.0

0ND

52.7-150

Decarbonationsludge

Data setsRange

3<1.0-5.0

61.2-6.6

60.97-14.0

71.1-32.0

6<0.01-

1.0

91.1-

1,420

90.20-73.0

30.15-1.0

85.2-557


Data setsRange

20.10-0.40

0ND

22.0-3.3

15.0

0ND

11.0

0ND

10.03

25.4-8.0


140.05-1,100

14<2.0-77.1

14<5.0-176

16<5.0-2,140

140.01-4.4

16<5.0-900

16<5.0-200

30.04-0.20

160.74-704

Drinking watertreatment

Flocculationsludge

Data setsRange

73.7-134

8<0.01-

200

112.7-240

111.6-440

9<0.20-0.44

111.7-534

91.7-850

10.22

110.50-4,200

KZA? – sludge(decarbonation)

Data setsRange

21.0-10.0

60.03-3.0

55.0-50.0

55.0-66.0

80.01-0.50

62.0-50.0

65.0-60.0

20.01-0.10

69.1-1,130

Water Supply

Watertreatment(industrial use)


Data setsRange

11.0-10.0

0ND

0ND

11.0-100

0ND

11.0-20.0

11.0-100

0ND

11.0-130


1900.99-93.0

2280.02-82.0

2482.0-180

2480.5-

1,700

1610.03-4.9

2480.9-110

2472.5-4,100

0ND

2485.0-5,200




11.5-20.0

50.40-6.5

54.0-45.0

58.0-70.0

4<0.05-

1.3

56.0-45.0

55.0-300

0ND

540.0-700


Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

Note: ND = No Data


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

344

Table F15 Organic Contaminants of Examined Mineral Wastes and By-Products (Gonser et al., 1999)

Organic ContaminantsSector Branch Waste/By-Product

Waste/By-ProductDetail PCB

(Sum as perDIN 51 527)µg kg-1 DS

PAH(Sum as per

US-EPA)mg kg-1 DS

Benzo-(a)-pyrenemg kg-1 DS

PCDD/F(I-TE)

ng kg-1 DS

AOXmg kg-1 DS

Soda production Slake limeresidues

Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

22.6-<5.8

ChemicalIndustry

Acetyleneproduction


0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

2<0.02

Fly ash Brown coal Data setsRange

00

20.04-0.29

2<0.001

00

00

Coal fired powerstations

TAV – ash (gastreatment)

Coal Data setsRange

1<30

1<1.75

1<0.05

0ND

0ND


0ND

21.49-1.60

20.003-0.02

91.00-13.8

0ND

Residualwood

Data setsRange

0ND

118.7

10.03

11.73

0ND



0ND

0ND

0ND

24-11

0ND

EnergyProduction


Fly ash Waste wood Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

0ND

21,000-3,600

0ND


Mineralprocessing

Rock grindingsludge

Data setsRange

115.7

1157

0ND

0ND

0ND

Foundry wastesand

Data setsRange

0ND

20.07-14.3

2<0.001-0.14

0ND

0ND

MetalProductionandProcessing

Foundries

Magnesium oxidedust

Data setsRange

0ND

10.24

10.005

0ND

0ND

Ash from papersludge incineration

Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

1<30-690

PaperProduction

Ash from de-inkingsludge incineration

Data setsRange

1<5

0ND

1<0.05

0ND

0ND



0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

36-27


0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

119

Water Supply Drinking watertreatment

Flocculationsludge

Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

579-1,860


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

345

Organic ContaminantsSector Branch Waste/By-Product

Waste/By-ProductDetail PCB

(Sum as perDIN 51 527)µg kg-1 DS

PAH(Sum as per

US-EPA)mg kg-1 DS

Benzo-(a)-pyrenemg kg-1 DS

PCDD/F(I-TE)

ng kg-1 DS

AOXmg kg-1 DS




299<0.6-1,200

0ND

114<0.01-4.4

190.8-23

160

Note: ND = no data


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

346

Table F16 Qualitative Evaluation of Heavy Metal Contents of Mineral Wastes and By-Products Used in Agriculture, onthe Basis of Maximum Concentrations Found (Gonser et al., 1999)

Heavy MetalsSector Branch Waste/By-Product 1)

Cd Cr Cu Hg Ni Pb ZnTitanium dioxideproduction

Iron-II-sulfate ++ ++ ++ ++ ND ++ ND

Capro-lactam production Ammonium sulfate ND ++ ++ + ++ ++ NDSoda production Slake lime residues ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++

Chemical Industry

Lime nitrogen conversion Lime residues ++ ND ++ ++ ND ++ ++Power Stations:- Brown coal Brown coal briquetting fly

ash++ ++ ND + ND ++ ++

- Brown coal Fluidised bed - fly ash ++ ++ ++ ND ++ ++ ++- Coal TAV – ash (gas treatment) 0 ++ 0 0 0 0 +- Coal/Brown coal REA – gypsum (gas

treatment)++ ++ ++ 0 ++ ++ ++

Bio-mass incineration(forest wood)

Grate/furnace bottom ash - 0 - ++ 0 + 0

Energy Production

Bio-mass incineration(residual wood)

Grate/furnace bottom ash - 0 - ++ - - 0

Mineral extraction Rock powder (lime stone) 0 + 0 0 + 0 +Mineral processing Rock grinding sludge 0 ND ND 0 ND ND --


Ceramics Adsorber lime 0 + ++ 0 ++ ++ ++Iron production Foundry lime ++ 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ ++

Converter lime/ ’Thomas’lime

++ -- ++ ++ ++ ++ ++Steel production

‘Thomas’ phosphate 0 -- 0 ++ 0 + +

Metal Production andProcessing

Foundries Furnace slag ND - 0 ND 0 ++ 0UndergroundConstruction

Bentonite + 0 0 0 0 0 0


Fire extinguisher powderresidues

0 ++ + ++ ++ ++ ++

Decarbonation sludge 0 ++ ++ 0 +2) ++ 0Fe/Mn sludge -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 0

Drinking water treatment

Flocculation sludge -- 0 0 ++ -- 0 -

Water Supply


KZA – sludge(decarbonation)

0 + + + 0 + 0


River water Dredging spoils/Sediments -- 0 -- 0 0 -- --

Lake water Dredging spoils/Sediments 0 ++ + 0 + 0 0

Limits Bio-Waste Ordinance (BioAbfV) 1.5 100 100 1 50 150 400Sewage Sludge Ordinance (AbfKlärV) 10 900 800 8 200 900 2500

Evaluation Scheme


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

347

++ Below limit of BioAbfV by factor of 2+ Below limit of BioAbfV0 Value between limits of BioAbfV and AbfKlärVExceeding limit of AbfKlärV-- Exceeding limit of AbfKlärV by factor of 21) Wastes/by-products which are used on agricultural land, but for which no heavy metal analyses are available, are not listed in this table2) Nickel limit of AbfKlärV clearly exceeded in one case


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

348


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

349

F4 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Waste Products from Animal Farming (Liquid Manure/Slurry)

As set out previously, the production of animal waste in Germany amounts to about200 million tonnes, containing over one million tonnes of nitrogen. Whilst there is considerablebenefit in using these products as fertilisers, there are environmental problems associatedwith it, such as excessive nitrogen input to land and the risk of contamination of water sources(groundwater and surface waters). In addition, there are hygienic and odour problems, andemissions of ammonia, nitrogen oxides and methane into the atmosphere. Intensive animalfarming practice has led to the concentration of high volumes of waste that, in order to complywith fertiliser regulations, cannot all be utilised near the sites of production (excessproduction).

The Federal Authorities (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung) funded an extensiveresearch programme, comprising 29 projects, between 1990 and 1997. The aim was toinvestigate potential problems associated with farm waste and to offer solutions.

This included investigations of environmental problems, such as excessive nitrogen(nitrate/nitrite) input to groundwater and surface waters, and emissions into the atmosphere(ammonia, N2O and methane). Treatment, storage and distribution were also investigated, inparticular, the aim was to develop technologies for producing manageable nutrientconcentrates (easy storage, transport and application), with a residual effluent which could bedisposed of via sewerage. Methods of animal waste minimisation, such as high protein feeds,were also examined (Schießl and Schwab, 2000, Döhler et al., 1999).

A summary of the findings and overall assessment is provided below.

Apart from the issues already mentioned above, a need for greater nitrogen efficiency(currently at only about 26% in animal production in Germany – Isermann, 1994, quoted inDöhler et al., 1999) and also energy efficiency were identified. The main problem lay inexcess animal waste production (excess nutrient content) and the associated costs oftreatment and transport.

Tables F17 and F18 summarise the overall findings, in terms of potential environmentalimprovements and the cost associated with it. Table F17 relates to animal holdings which arecompatible with the available surface area, whereas Table F18 relates to excess waste(nutrient) production.

The evaluation of scenario 1 (covered storage, land application with low emission measures)in Table F17 relates to the application of liquid manure without low emission measures, whilstscenarios 2 (with separation, i.e. use of a separator, followed by separate storage andapplication of solid manure) and 3 (with bio-gas production) are evaluated against scenario 1.As shown in the table, an overall positive environmental effect can be achieved with bio-gasproduction, although this leads to an increase in ammonia emissions; the costs remainunchanged.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

350

Table F17 Evaluation of the environmental compatibility of liquid manure treatmentand land application with animal holdings compatible with the availablesurface area (Döhler et al., 1999)

1 2 3Scenario

Covered storage,low emissionapplication

As 1, withseparation

As 1, with bio-gasinstallation

Primary energybalance

No effect - +++

NH3 emission Very good - -

N2O emission No effect + ++

CH4 emission No effect + ++

Odour emission Good + +

Hygiene No effect 0 +

Total Good 0 +

Costs Slight excess costs - 0

Notes: Evaluation of scenario 1 compared with application without low emission measures;Evaluation of scenarios 2 and 3 compared with scenario 1:+ improvement- negative effect0 no effect

Table F18 Evaluation of the environmental compatibility of liquid manure treatmentand land application with animal holdings producing excess nutrient(+20% N and P) (Döhler et al., 1999)

4 5 6 7 4B 5B 6BScenario

Ad-justed

feeding

Separation&

composting

‘Export’of excessnutrient

Central-ised

treatment

As 4,with

bio-gas

As 5,with

bio-gas

As 6,with

bio-gas

Primaryenergybalance

+ - - - ++ ++++ +++ ++++

NH3

emission++ 0 + + + - 0

N2Oemission

++ ++ + + +++ +++ +++

CH4

emission+ 0 0 0 ++ ++ ++


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

351

4 5 6 7 4B 5B 6BScenario

Ad-justed

feeding

Separation&

composting

‘Export’of excessnutrient

Central-ised

treatment

As 4,with

bio-gas

As 5,with

bio-gas

As 6,with

bio-gas

Odouremission

0 + 0 0 ++ ++ ++

Hygiene 0 0 - 0 + + 0

Total + 0 0 (-) 0 (+) +++ + ++

Costs 0 - - - - - 0 - - -

Notes: + improvement- negative effect0 no effect

The evaluation of the scenarios involving excess nutrient production (Table F18) was carriedout on the basis that the total amount of liquid manure would be utilised on site, despite theexcess nutrient content.

The best solution to the excess nutrient problem is clearly the optimisation of feeding, whichresults not only in reduced nutrient input, but also to reduced emissions of ammonia, nitrousoxides and methane, though no change in odour emissions and hygiene (scenario 4). Thiscan be achieved without additional costs.

Scenarios 5 (separation and composting), 6 (export of excess nutrient) and 7 (centralisedtreatment) bring no significant overall environmental improvements, whilst incurring increasedcosts.

Significant environmental improvements can be achieved through the combination ofscenarios 4, 5 and 6 with bio-gas production (scenarios 4B, 5B, 6B); in the case of 4B(optimised feeding, combined with bio-gas production) without additional costs. Theeconomics of all the latter scenarios will be greatly improved, if the investment costs of thebio-gas installations can be reduced in future; this would then open the way to additionalincome to farmers from bio-gas production.

Overall, it was concluded that the state-of-the-art, with respect to the production, storage,treatment and application of farm slurry was well developed. Table F19 provides a summaryof the minimisation of environmental impacts, which can be achieved by applying state-of-the-art methods.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

352

Table F19 Assessment of the possibilities for minimising environmental impactsfrom farm wastes (Döhler et al., 1999)

Criteria Feeding Storage Treatment1)

Treat-ment 2)

Transportand

applicationon land

State-of-the-arttechnology/knowledge

++ ++ + + +

Potential contribution toenvironmental impact minimisation

++ + + 0 +

Cost/benefit effect ++ +0 + - - +

State of technology/knowledgetransfer

0- +0 0 - - - -

Notes: 1) Treatment to improve liquid manure properties, particularly fermentation2) Treatment to separate nutrients (partial or total clean-up)++ very good; + good; 0 satisfactory; - bad; - - very bad

The main conclusion from this work was that there was a considerable body of knowledge,which was poorly implemented at farm level. If current state-of-the-art were to be implementedwidely, the major environmental impacts could be reduced significantly. In this respect, it wasrecommended that the priority should focus on increased numbers and better advisory bodiesto help farmers put in practice the current knowledge (Döhler et al., 1999).

The example of groundwater protection zones and the advisory bodies concerned with theirimplementation and liaison with farmers was cited as a positive example of environmentalachievements without compromising farmers’ income.

Decision Aids for Farmers and Advisory Bodies

Liquid manure application

An expert system (GUELLEX) has been developed for use by farmers and advisory bodies;this is a scientifically based mass balance and decision aid system, concerningenvironmentally acceptable and sustainable utilisation of liquid farm manure (Engel et al.,1997, cited in Döhler et al., 1999).

Database on Organic and Mineral Wastes and Fertilisers

This waste database (KTBL, 2000) has already been described earlier. It provides aclassification system of waste materials for re-use on land, qualitative data for a large numberof waste types (although there are still many gaps in the available information), details aboutthe potential application of wastes on land, including information about relevant legislation,physical properties and appropriate methods of application.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

353

The aim of the database is to provide a decision aid for producers and users of wastematerials, as well as those involved in waste processing and distribution, and advisory bodiesengaged in assisting farmers.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

354


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

355

REFERENCES

Laws

BBoSchG (1998) Bundes-Bodenschutzgesetz (Federal Soil Protection Law) 17.3.1998,Bundes-Gesetz-Blatt (BGBl.), I, 502, 1998.

DMG (1977) Düngemittelgesetz (Fertiliser Law) 15.11.1977, BGBl. I, 2134, amended throughLaws of 12.07.1989, BGBl. I, 1435, and 27.9.1994, BGBl. I, 2705.

KrW-/AbfG (1994) Kreislaufwirtschafts- und Abfallgesetz (Waste Avoidance, Recycling andDisposal Law) 27.9.1994, BGBl. I, 2705 (last amended 1998).

Ordinances

AbfKlärV (1992) Klärschlammverordnung (Wastewater Treatment Sludge Ordinance) 1992,Bundes-Gesetz-Blatt (BGBl.) I, 912, 1992.

BioAbfV (1998) Bioabfallverordnung (Bio-Waste Ordinance) 21.9.1998, BGBl. I, 2955.

Bundes-Bodenschutz- und Altlastenverordnung (1999) (Federal Soil Protection andContaminated Soil Ordinance) 18.6.1999, Bundes-Anzeiger, 161a, 28.8.1999.

DüMV (1991) Düngemittelverordnung (Fertiliser Ordinance) 9.7.1991, BGBl. III, 7820-6, 1991.

EAKV (1996) Verordnung zur Einführung des Europäischen Abfallkatalogs (EAK Ordinance)(Ordinance to transpose the European Waste Catalogue) 13.9.1996, BGBl. I, 1428.

Other regulations and guidelines

EU (1998) Commission Decision establishing the ecological criteria for the award of theCommunity eco-label to soil improvers. EU Official Journal, L 219, 7.8.1998.

LAGA (1997) Definition und Abgrenzung von Abfallverwertung und Abfallbeseitigung sowievon Abfall und Produkt nach dem Kreislaufwirtschafts- und Abfallgesetz (KrW-/AbfG)(Definition and distinction of ‘waste recycling’ and ‘waste disposal’, as well as ‘waste’ and‘product’ according to the Waste Avoidance, Recycling and Disposal Law), Stand:17/18.03.1997 von der LAGA (Länderarbeitsgemeinschaft Abfall) beschlossene Fassung.

LAGA (1995) Anforderungen an die stoffliche Verwertung von mineralischenReststoffen/Abfällen – Technische Regeln (Technical Regulation: Requirements for thephysical recycling of mineral residues/wastes). Mitteilungen der LänderarbeitsgemeinschaftAbfall (LAGA) 20, Stand 5. September 1995, Erich Schmidt Verlag, Berlin.

UVPG (1990) Allgemeine Verwaltungsvorschrift zur Ausführung des Gesetzes über dieUmweltverträglichkeitsprüfung (Administrative regulations concerning the implementation ofthe Environmental Impact Assessment) 12.02.1990, Bundes-Gesetz-Blatt (BGBl.) I, 205, lastamended 17.5.1994, BGBl. I, 3486.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

356

Other references

Anon (2000) Datenbank organische und mineralische Abfälle/Reststoffe – Entscheidungshilfefür die Einordnung von Abfällen zur Verwertung bzw. zur Beseitigung (Database organic andmineral by-products/wastes – decision aid for the classification of wastes for re-use ordisposal), Umwelt, 3, 140-141.

Bachmann, G., Bannick, C.G., Giese, E., Glante, F., Kiene, A., Konitzka, R., Rück, F.,Schmitd, S., Terytze, K., and Borries, D. (1997) Fachliche Eckpunkte zur Ableitung vonBodenwerten im Rahmen des Bundes-Bodenschutzgesetzes (Scientific basis for thederivation of soil values in the context of the Federal Soil Law); in: Handbuch Bodenschutz,Kz. 3500, Lfg. IX/97.

Bannick, C.G., Bachmann, G., and Dreher, P. (1998) Soil Values for the application of organicwaste to agricultural land and the recycling of mineral waste, Land Contamination andReclamation, 6,2, 103-106.

Döhler, H. (1998) Recycling organic solids in Agriculture: quantities, restraints preventingrecycling, application techniques. EU Concerted Action: CT97 – 3779, Recycling OrganicSolids in Agriculture (ROSA), Meeting 1, 24-25 September 1998, JTI Swedish Institute ofAgricultural Engineering, Papers compiled by Cumby and Scotford, Sisoe Research Institute,December 1998.

Döhler, H., Schießl, K., Schwab, M., and Kuhn, E. (1999) UmweltverträglicheGülleaufbereitung und –verwertung (Environmentally acceptable treatment and use of liquidmanure), BMBF-Förderschwerpunkt. Kuratorium für Technik und Bauwesen in derLandwirtschaft e.V., Darmstadt, KTBL-Schriften-Vertrieb im Landwirtschaftsverlag, GmbH,Münster-Hiltrup, Germany.

Engel, T., Bücken, S., Sonntag, M., Reiner, L. (1997) GUELLEX – Ein Bilanzierungs- undEntscheidungssystem zum umweltschonenden inner- und überbetrieblichen Gülleeinsatz (Amass balance and decision aid for environmentally acceptable on-site and off-site utilisation ofliquid farm manure). Abschlussbericht (final project report), Lehreinheit für Ackerbau undInformatik (Agriculture and Information Technology Department), TU (Technical University)Munich.

Gonser, J., Nolting, B., Meister, A., Lorenz-Meyer, V., Arzt, F., Lichtenvort, K., and Zwisele, B.(1999) Bundesweite Erhebung von mineralischen Abfällen und Nebenprodukten nach Art,Menge und Zusammensetzung, die pflanzenbaulich (vor allem in der Landwirtschaft)verwendet werden (National Collation of mineral wastes and by-products which are used forplant production purposes (particularly in agriculture), according to type, amount andcomposition) Part I: Final report and Part II: Annex. Research Report 296 31 533, UBA-FB 99-121, Umweltbundesamt, Berlin.

Isermann, K. (1994) Ammoniak-Emissionen der Landwirtschaft, ihre Auswirkungen auf dieUmwelt und ursachenorientierte Lösungsansätze sowie Lösungsaussichten zur hinreichendenMinderung (Ammonia emission from agriculture, its effect on the environment, and possiblesolutions in relation to its cause and effective reduction). In: Enquete-Kommission desDeutschen Bundestages (eds.), Studienprogramm Band 1: Landwirtschaft, Teilband 1, StudieE. Bonn, Economica Verlag.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

357

KTBL (2000) ‘Datenbank Organische/mineralische Abfälle und Wirtschaftsdünger (Databaseorganic and mineral wastes and fertilisers). KTBL, VDLUFA and GütegemeinschaftBodenverbesserung, CD-ROM Version 1. Kuratorium für Technik und Bauwesen in derLandwirtschaft (KTBL) e.V., Darmstadt, Germany.

Schießl, K., and Schwab, M. (2000) Forschung zeigt Flops und Chancen (Researchdemonstrates pit-falls and opportunities), Umweltmagazin, April 2000, 38-39.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

358

CONTACTS

Umweltbundesamt (Federal Environment Agency), Berlin

Dr H Eckel, Kuratorium für Technik und Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft (KTBL) e.V.,Darmstadt, Germany (KTBL), Darmstadt


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

359

APPENDIX G GREECE

SUMMARY

There is no legislation specific to the recycling of organic residues to land except for sewagesludge.

In general, there is little intensive livestock rearing in Greece except in the area aroundAthens. The estimated quantities of wastes produced by farm animals amount to 40.5 milliontonnes on a fresh weight basis equivalent to 7 million tonnes of dry solids. Poultry manure isthe main waste systematically converted to compost of high market value prior to recycling toland.

The main relevant industrial sectors in Greece are food and drink and textile sectors. Therewas no information available on the waste arising and disposal outlets. It was reported thatthe disposal of olive oil wastewater is of concern in Greece. Research has been carried out onco-composting of olive mill wastewater, olive press cake and olive tree leaves for future re-usein agriculture.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

360


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

361

G1 LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

Control on farm animal waste landspreading

There is no legislation on the control of animal waste spread to land. Greece has, however, tocomply with the EU Nitrates Directive for the protection of waters from agricultural sources.The Directive requires Member States to designate vulnerable zones within which code ofgood agricultural practices applies and nitrogen applications are restricted.

Control on industrial waste landspreading

There is no legislation specific to the recycling of organic residues to land except for sewagesludge which is regulated by Ministerial Decision No 80568/4225/641/B/7-8-1991. TheDecision integrates the limit values specified in the EC Sludge Directive 86/278 for heavymetal level in sludge and maximum application rate. Sewage sludge may be used inagriculture or for landscape remediation /restoration of degraded areas.

It is reported that from measurements taken across municipal treatment plants seem toindicate that sewage sludge has a low toxicity.

There is a Joint Ministerial Decision (JMD 114218/1016/17-11-1997) that sets all the technicalspecifications for the management programs of solid waste. Management programs includethe collection, transportation, treatment and disposal of solid waste.

The JMD mentioned above is accompanied with JMD 113944/1016/17-11-1997 which is theNational Planning of solid waste (General Directions of solid waste management Policy).

Together they contain all the technical specifications and the general directions for the designand management of programs of solid waste.

There is also a new JMD 14312/1302/2000, which sets the means and actions for theimplementation of the National Planning of solid waste.

In the above laws, there exist the technical specifications for the construction and operation ofmechanical recycling plants. Also there are the qualitative specifications (pH, maximum heavymetals content, moisture, etc) of the compost produced in mechanical recycling plants.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

362


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

363

G2 QUANTITIES OF WASTE RECYCLED TO LAND

The recycling of organic waste in agriculture is not very well developed in Greece. Althoughthe quantities of organic residues from the agriculture sector and from municipal wastecollection are increasing, their recycling is not carried out in any controlled manner.

Farm animal waste

In general, there is little intensive livestock rearing in Greece except in the area aroundAthens. Overall there are only 600 farms with more than 300 cattle and 100 farms with morethan 1000 pigs (WRc and Ecotec 1994). The estimated quantities of wastes produced by farmanimals (Table G1), based on the latest figures on livestock numbers provided from Eurostat(1999-2000) and an average volume produced per head (Table G2), amount to 40.5 milliontonnes on a fresh weight basis. This includes farm yard manure and manure from grazinganimals. The quantity of manure in Greece reported by Eurostat in 1995 amounted to 7 milliontonnes (dry weight).

Poultry manure is the main waste systematically converted to compost of high market valueprior to recycling to land. In the north of Greece, there are cases of cow manure compostedand sold as organic fertiliser in the local market (Georgakakis 1999). Research has beencarried out on recycling of farm animal waste to agriculture at the Agricultural University ofAthens, looking at the beneficial effects of adding cattle manure to crops compared withchemical fertilisers and production of good quality compost from pig and poultry manure(Georgakakis 1999).

It was reported that there was a lot of concern in Greece for the disposal of sheep-goatmanure (Georgakakis 1999).

Table G1 Quantities of animal wastes produced in Greece

Animal type Quantity(x103 tonnes /annum)1

Cattle 6 546

Pig 1 580

Poultry ?

Sheep 30 387

Horse 2 007

Total 40 520 Note:

1 fresh weight basis


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

364

Table G2 Number of livestock and manure production in Greece

Animal type Number1

(x103)Yield

(l per week andper animal)

Total(x103 t per

annum)

Cattle

• Less than 1 year 156 80 649

• 1<<2 years 92 140 670

• Male/heifer more than 2years

37 250 481

• Dairy cow more than 2 years 168 315 2 752

• Other cow more than 2years

137 280 1 995

Pig

• Piglets less than 20 kg 230 15 179

• Pigs 20 kg << 50 kg 213 30 332

• Fattening pigs more than 50kg

336 30 524

• Breeding pigs- boar 7 60 22

• Covered sow 71 100 369

• Sow not covered 49 60 153

Poultry ? 1.1 ?

Sheep/goat 14,334 50/25 30 387

Horse/mules 2002 193 2 007Note:

1 Eurostat 1999-20002 OECD 1995

Industrial waste

The main relevant industrial sectors in Greece are food and drink and textile sectors. Therewas no information available on the waste arising and disposal outlets. Food processingwaste is recycled to agriculture.

It was reported that the disposal of olive oil wastewater is of concern in Greece. Research hasbeen carried out on co-composting of olive mill wastewater, olive press cake and olive treeleaves for future re-use in agriculture (Georgakakis 1999).

There are a few composting plants which treat primarily municipal solid waste and sewagesludge. The compost produced in the above facilities is used as fertiliser in the agriculturalsector.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

365

Currently in Greece we have the following waste facilities:

1. Composting plants: There are two plants (one in Kalamata and one pilot in Athens),which receive organic waste (gardening waste, etc) as well as sludge from wastewatertreatment plants, to produce compost.

2. Mechanical recycling and composting plants: There are two plants in Athens (oneunder construction) and one in Thessaloniki (under construction) which will receivemixed municipal solid waste, separate and recycle aluminum, separate organic matterto produce compost and produce RDF from plastics and paper.

The total amount of sewage sludge produced in Greece is 58,993 tds per year from 138municipal treatment plants. The percentage of the sludge recycled to agriculture is not known.It is reported that it should amount to around 20% while landfilling is the principal disposalroute. Dewatered sewage sludge with 30% dry solids and organic matter from municipal solidwaste may be used together to produce compost for use in agriculture.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

366


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

367

G3 PROPERTIES OF WASTE SPREAD ON LAND

Farm waste

No information was provided on the quality of animal manure as produced in Greece.

Industrial waste

No information was provided on the quality of industrial waste as produced in Greece.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

368


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

369

REFERENCE

Georgakakis D 1999. A research review in the field of recycling organic solids in agriculture inGreece. In: Proceedings of 2 meeting of ROSA, 25-26 February 1999.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

370


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

371

APPENDIX H IRELAND

SUMMARY

Over four million tonnes dry solids of non-hazardous waste are recycled to agriculture inIreland each year. This amount includes 3.9 million tds of animal waste and 4,000 tonnes ofsewage sludge, the rest arising from industrial processes, water works sludge and spentmushroom compost.

Until this point landfill was the principal disposal route for non-hazardous sludges. Due toincreasing landfill costs and pressures imposed by the Landfill Directive and IPPC legislation itis likely that the volume of sludge recycled to land will increase. In addition, there is adecreasing landfill capacity and difficulty in establishing new sites because of planning andpublic opposition. With legislation and economics as the main drivers, industry and localauthorities are now seeking more environmentally sustainable alternatives. In some regionsthese solutions are being sought in the form of centralised integrated sludge managementschemes.

There are currently no formal legal controls on the landspreading of waste other than sewagesludge. However, this is likely to change with the implementation of IPPC and other possiblegovernment initiatives to strengthen current waste law. Once fully implemented, the IntegratedPollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) directive (EC 96/61/EC) will imposes some control onthe sludge producing industries under their remit (such as intensive pig and poultry units) byrequiring nutrient management plans with information on sludge quality and application rates.Holders of IPPC licences are already obliged to produce an annual environmental reportincluding information on waste spreading operations.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

372


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

373

H1 LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

Control on farm animal waste landspreading

Under Section 51 of the Waste Management Act 1996 as amended by 1998 Regulations (SI1998/146), agricultural wastes recycled to land are exempt from licensing. Local Authoritieshave little or no control over the spreading of cattle or other livestock slurries unless theactivity has caused pollution of controlled waters. Some local authorities license spreadingoperators.

The Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS) has been organised by the Department ofAgriculture with the aim of encouraging environmentally friendly agricultural practices. Joiningthe scheme is voluntary, but farmers who join and observe certain rules and codes, obtain anannual grant from the government. One of the rules pertains to the spreading of slurry andincludes specifications relating to, storage requirements; permissible spreading times; housingof animals; and maximum permissible rates of application of organic nitrogen (250 kg perhectare). Under the scheme, farmers are also required to have a nutrient management planprepared for their land. This should take crop requirements into account as well as slurryarising from over-wintering of livestock.

Control on industrial waste landspreading

The Waste Management Act 1996 as amended by 1998 Regulations (SI 1998/146)implements the EC Waste Framework Directive. Section 51 of the Act relates to the recoveryof sludge and agricultural wastes. Under this section, a waste licence is not required for therecovery of the sludge listed below:

• Residual sludge from a) sewage plants treating domestic or urban waste waters and fromother sewage plants treating waste waters of a composition similar to domestic and urbanwaste waters; b) septic tanks and other similar installations from the treatment of sewage;c) sewage plants other than those referred in a) and b);

• Blood of animal or poultry origin;

• Faecal matter of animal or poultry origin in the form of manure or slurry; or

• Such natural agricultural waste as may be prescribed.

The Integrated Pollution Control system and the Environmental Protection Agency have beenintroduced under the 1992 Environmental Protection Agency Act. In Ireland, relevantindustries requiring an Integrated Pollution Control (IPPC) licence include intensive pig andpoultry producers, sugar factories, pharmaceutical plants, and timber/board manufacturers.The IPPC plants are required to hold a nutrient management plan. This forms part of thelicence and is specific to the type of sludge and to the selected landspreading area. Spreadingis only permitted on land with phosphorous level of 15 mg per litre or less. Both the industryand the landowner must sign spreading agreements. Holders of IPPC licences are obliged toproduce annual environmental reports that should contain details of sludge spreadingoperations. In practice it takes some effort to obtain satisfactory reports from all licenceholders, particularly from agricultural holdings.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

374

The EPA advise that the rates of application of waste to land should be determined by:

1. The P requirement of the crop to which the sludge is being applied;

2. The maximum permissible rate of application of nitrogen under the Nitrates Directive(250 kg N per hectare); and

3. A maximum hydraulic loading of 23 cubic metres per hectare on limestone soils or50 cubic metres on other soils.

Local authorities are responsible for planning authorisation and supervision of wasteoperations in their areas including the landspreading of sludges from all other sources. Thisincludes smaller industries that do not come under the IPPC licensing threshold, smaller pigand poultry units. Some local authorities are also beginning to request sludge spreadingreports via planning authorisation. The majority of local authorities have also adopted the EPArecommendations for rate of applications.

Control on sewage sludge landspreading

Local authorities are responsible for controlling municipal sewage treatment plants. Currentlythe spreading of sewage sludge is controlled by Statutory Instrument No. 148 of 1998 (SI1998/148). A Code of Good Practice for the Use of Biosolids in Agriculture has recently beenpublished. The code contains comprehensive guidelines for the application of biosolids toagriculture, this includes revised recommendations for maximum permissible levels of PTEs.The Department of the Environment is intending to revise SI 1998/148 to take account of therecommendations of the code. It is likely that when the revision takes place it will also applylimits to applications of all sludge types used in agriculture.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

375

H2 QUANTITIES OF WASTE RECYCLED TO LAND

In 1997, the Irish Department of the Environment commissioned a project to undertake aninventory of non-hazardous sludges and livestock waste produced in Ireland. Fehily Timoney& Co (FTC) were awarded the contract in association with WRc. Questionnaires were sent tolocal authorities, industries and waste management contractors. The industries contactedwere major food industries, breweries and distilleries, dairies and co-operative societies,mushroom growers, rendering and animal slaughtering industries, pharmaceutical andchemical companies, textiles industries and manufacturers of paints, varnishes, resins, paperpulp, board and extraction and processing of minerals. The data from that study (DoE 1998)has been used (with permission from the DoE) to form the basis of the information for thisreport as this is still the most up-to-date information detained by the Irish DoE.

In 1997/98, it was estimated that the total quantity of non-hazardous waste produced inIreland was about 4.3 million tonnes of dry solids (tds) per annum (Table H 1) (DoE 1998). Ofthese nearly 4 million tds were recycled to land. The non-hazardous wastes comprise sewagesludge, water works sludge, sludge from industrial processes and sludge from the foodindustries (food-processing, animal slaughtering and rendering, mushroom production,intensive livestock rearing). Animal wastes represent the largest proportion (97%) of wasterecycled to land, while the other wastes amount to 2.6% and sewage sludge to less than 1%.

Table H1 Estimated quantities of wastes (tds/annum) produced and proportionspread annually on land in Ireland (DoE 1998)

Industrial sector Wasteproduced

Agriculture Landfill STW Other

Agriculture 3,895,433 100 %

Food and drinks (Meat, fish,vegetable, sugar, dairy, softdrink, brewery, etc)

88,851 81,840(92%)

6,604(7%)

407(1%)

Rendering and slaughtering 123,347 17,769(14%)

1,600(2%)

103,978(84%)

Basic organic chemical industry(pharmaceutical industry, etc.)

57,446 2590(5%)

51,036(88%)

114(<1%)

3,706(<7%)

Waterworks 6,197 373(<6%)

4,140(67%)

17(<1%)

1,667(26%)

Other industries 6,334 0 5,917

(93%)

417(7%)

Spent Mushroom Compost 95,400 51,516(54%)

43,884(46%)

Sewage sludge 38,290 4,174(11%)

18,722(49%)

188(<1%)

15,206(40%)

Total 4,311,298 4, 002,213 88,258 393 169,265Note: STW Municipal Sewage Treatment plant


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

376

Farm animal waste

The quantities of animal wastes calculated in 1998 DoE survey (Table H2) were quantifiedbased on average volume produced per head (Table H3) and livestock numbers providedfrom the June 1991 Census as no more recent data were not available at the time of thesurvey. The 1999 Census data are now available and have been reported in Table H4 forinformation. The cattle slurry volumes is overestimated as the total cattle number dropsapproximately by 10% during the winter months as a lot of them are slaughtered.

Large intensive poultry and pig units have to be licensed under IPPC since March 1998. Thereare around 220 pigs units and 6 poultry farms falling under the IPPC system. Waste fromintensive livestock rearing units are seasonal, especially for cattle. Animals are housed onaverage for 16 to 20 weeks. Longer housed period of up to six months occur in the colderparts of the country. Pigs and poultry are normally housed indoors all year round. Sheepmanure is also seasonal as ewes are only housed for 6 weeks during lambing. All other sheepare kept outdoors throughout the year. For the purposes of this study, the volumes of animalmanure have only been calculated for those animals that are kept indoors.

The main difficulty with agricultural waste in Ireland is the concentrated nature of the industry.About 40% of the national sow herd are confined in two of the 26 counties. In one county,poultry and mushroom production account for 47% and 12% respectively of the grossagricultural output compared with the national figures of 4 and 2% respectively.Landspreading is the favoured disposal option for manure, but where industry is soconcentrated finding land space to spread in the vicinity can prove a problem. In recent years,the practise of composting manures with straw and gypsum to make mushroom compost hasincreased in popularity. The nutrient content is a function of animal type, its diet, storageconditions, dilution with water or litter.

Table H2 Quantities of animal wastes produced in Ireland (DoE 1998)

Animal type Quantity(tonnes dry solids/annum)a

Cattle 3 436 376

Pig 153 645

Poultry (litter) 93 256

Poultry (slurry) 38 853

Sheep 167 388

Horse 5 915

Total 3 895 433 Notes:

a These figures are based on calculations made according to number of livestock for 1991 and period oftime spent in doors, the slurry from which is collected and stored for disposal.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

377

Table H3 Coefficient of waste production per livestock category (DAFF 1994)

Animal type Water/solidsratio in feed

Volume(litre week-1)

Comments

Dairy cow (560 kg) 315

Suckler cow (500 kg) 280

Beef cattle (450 kg) 250

Young cattle (250 kg) 140

Calf (140 kg) 80

Finishing pigs (58 kg) 2 to 1 20 Based on a daily intake of 1.95kg of meal/pig

2.5 to 1 27

3 to 1 34

3.5 to 1 41

4 to 1 48

Lactating sow and litter 3 to 1 97 Based on a daily intake of 5.5kg of meal/pig

3.5 to 1 115

4 to 1 135

Dry sow/boar 3.5 to 1 53 Based on a daily intake of 2.5kg of meal/pig

4 to 1 62

4.5 to 1 70

Gilt 3 to 1 44 Based on a daily intake of 2.5kg of meal/pig

Weaner 3 to 1 15 Based on a daily intake of 0.85kg of meal/pig

Lambs- finishing (25-40kg)

13

Mountain ewes (40-50 kg) 17

Lowland ewes (60-80 kg) 28

Laying hens (81 batterycaged/89 free-range)

106

Broilers (100 places, dayold to 35-49 days old)

45 Average per crop(5.5 per year)

Turkeys (100 places/dayold to 120 days old)

72 Average per crop(2 to 3 per year)

Horse (450 kg) 193


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

378

Table H4 Number of livestock in Ireland – Census 1999

Animal type Number(x103)

Breeding cattle:

Dairy cows 1,284

Other cows 1,183.4

Dairy heifers 209.3

Other feifers 94.5

Bulls 44.5

Other cattle:

Male > 2years 800

Female > 2 years 370

Male 1-2 years 1,081.8

Female 1-2 years 678.7

Male < 1 year 954.5

Female < 1year 870.8

Sub-total 1: 7,571.3

Breeding sheep:

Ewes > 2years 3,572.4

Ewes < 2years 794.5

Rams 110.9

Other sheep: 3,520.0

Sub-total 2: 7,998

Breeding pig:

Female 188.4

Boars 4.3

Other pigs:

>20 kg and over 1,101.4

<20 kg 492.8

Sub-total 3: 1,786.9

Poultry:

Ordinary fowl 11,419.7

Other fowl 1,277.7

Sub-total 4: 12,697.4

Horses and ponies 75.5

Mules 7.3

Goats 13.5

Farmed deer 16.1


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

379

Industrial waste

In 1997, there were 308 IPPC licences on records at the EPA in Ireland. Of these, 148 wereidentified as sludge producers and were reviewed. Where insufficient information on thegeneration, treatment and disposal of sludge was contained in licence and application,companies were sent a questionnaire. Questionnaires were also sent to the 34 LocalAuthorities, which have all responded. The major agro-industries were also sent aquestionnaire. The level of response was relatively good (Table H5).

Table H5 Level of returns from the 1997 survey

Sector Number of companiescontacted

Percentage of returns

Dairies/co-ops 76 41%

Mushroom growers 115a 22 %

Food industry 40 48 %

Breweries/distillers 10 48 %

Rendering and slaughtering 12 42 %

Textile industries 19 + 9b 47 %

Pharmaceutical and chemicalindustries

72 %

Otherc 28 68 %Notes:

a This was a representative sample out of 576 mushroom growers identified from the Horticultural Census in1997

b Information on a further 9 textile industries was obtained from the IPPC licencesc Including manufacturers of paints, varnishes, resins, paper pulp, board and extraction and processing of

minerals

Food Processing

A large proportion of sludge produced from the food processing tend to be produced in smallquantities by widely separated plants at various volumes throughout the year, depending oncrop harvesting times. Dairy sludge while produced all year round decrease in volume duringthe winter months.

Food processing waste consists of solid residues from the preparation of food or drink or frombiological treatment of high-strength liquid wastes. Of the 88,851 tds of sludge producedannually, the largest proportion of this waste in Ireland is from sugar processing (65%) anddairy processing (27%). General food manufacturers, breweries and soft drink manufacturersgenerate the rest. The majority is recycled to agricultural land (92%), disposed of to landfill(7%) or reuse in animal feed or other food products (1%).

Waste from sugar processing consists of mainly waste lime and pulp residues, these arenormally landspread.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

380

Dairy processing waste can be highly variable depending on the process, however it is usuallyhighly putrescible, high in fat and oil content and high in protein materials such as albumenand casein. The dairy industry normally treats its own waste and disposes of its sludge toagriculture using private contractors. Until recently this practice was more or less unregulated.The dairy industry is now going through the IPPC process and is likely that sludge recycling toland will become more regulated and therefore more expensive.

Residues form breweries include grain husks and yeast settled out or separated from themalting and brewing processes. These wastes are mainly reused as animal feed orreprocessed for use in food or nutrient materials.

Waste streams from soft drink manufacturers are usually low in solids concentration but mayhave high sugars content. These are usually spread on agricultural land.

Animal Slaughtering

Waste from abattoirs consists of offal, blood, paunch contents, wash wastes and sludge fromdissolved air floatation equipment. All the waste has potential to be odorous and has a highBOD. Of the 123,347 tds waste produced annually, 83% is offal that is sent for rendering.Paunch contents are usually landspread. Application of blood to land is now a less commonpractice than it has been in previous years, processing into blood meal and protein for animalfeed is now more prevalent. Paunch contents that consist predominantly of partly digest feedor vegetable matter are usually landspread. The wash water from holding areas, vehicles isalso typically landspread. Abattoirs wastes are mainly sent to a rendering plant (83%),landspread in agriculture (14%), landfilled (< 2%), re-used as protein/bloodmeal (< 1%).

Industrial Biological sludges

These sludges arise from the treatment of organic wastes from chemical, pharmaceutical andbiochemical industries. Sludge components will vary considerably according to the type ofprocess from which they are produced and the waste stream characteristics. These sludgeswill not necessarily contain any human or animal pathogens, but may contain quantities ofPTE’s. These wastes are usually landfilled (88%). Only 5% is spread in agriculture. Mostchemical and pharmaceutical sludges are landfilled at present, but this is likely to changegiven the current legal and economic climate.

Industrial sludges derived from physical / chemical treatment plants

Industries often need to treat water before being able to use it in their process. Around 6,334tds are produced each year in Ireland. Lime sludges are derived from water softening andother neutralisation processes. They often contain significant quantities of metals or otherimpurities so most (93%) are landfilled. Typically sludge are dewatered to 20-35% ds beforebeing landfilled. None are recycled to agriculture.

Waterworks sludge

The largest proportion of water treatment work (WTW) sludge in Ireland is coagulant sludgewith an annual production of 6,197 tonnes dry solids. These are produced when raw water istreated with a coagulant to remove impurities. The quantities of WTW sludge are not expected


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

381

to increase, as new water supply schemes will largely come from groundwater and fromreducing leakages.

As they have little agronomic benefit these wastes are usually landfilled (67%), followingthickening and dewatering. The other outlets are discharged into controlled water (14%),storage on sites (12%), landspreading (< 6%) and discharged to sewer or tankered to sewagetreatment works (< 1%).

Spent mushroom compost (SMC)

Since the 1980’s there has been a rapid growth in the mushroom industry. The HorticulturalCrop Census in 1997 reported 577 growers with an estimated compost usage of 201,208t/annum. A production cycle is around 10-12 weeks and a single typically sized facilitygenerates approximately 18 tonnes of spent mushroom compost. Approximately 95,400 tds ofspent mushroom compost (SMC) is generated. The most variable mineral is calcium as itdepends on the rate of lime used in the casing layer.

Most SMC is landspread (54.3%), sent to quarries (18.4%), disposed of in wetland areas(13.6%), on poor land (3.8%). The waste compost has to be transported considerabledistances from the plant before landspreading to prevent spore contamination, this can be aneconomic problem to the producer. For this reason it is likely that a large portion of spentcompost is fly-tipped. There is little room for expansion of the industry so future volumes ofSMC are likely to remain the same to those given for 1997.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

382


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

383

H3 PROPERTIES OF WASTE SPREAD ON LAND

Farm waste

Typical nutrient content for animal waste is given in Table H6.

Table H6 Typical nutrient content (kg t-1) (DoE, 1998)

Animal type DM (%) N P K

Cattle 10 4 0.7 4.5

Pig 6 4 1.4 2

Dungstead manure 17 3.5 0.9 4

Farm yard manure 20 4.5 1 6

Poultry

Deep litter 60 25 9.8 13.2

Layers 30 14.5 5.4 7

Industrial waste

Industries covered under IPPC have to analyse their wastes and submit results at the time ofsubmission of application. In most cases, the waste composition will have changed and unlessit is specified in an IPPC license there is no legal obligation to supply detailed chemicalanalyses of waste to be landspread. Industries under local authority control are not required tocarry out and submit any quality results. As has been discussed in earlier sections, currentlythe major limiting element imposed on landspreading is phosphorous. However it is likely thatfuture legislation will contain restrictions on PTE’s for all landspread wastes.

Waterworks sludge

The composition of WTW sludge is variable and depends both on the treatment and source ofwater. A typical composition of coagulant water treatment sludge is given in Table H7. TheWTW sludges are typically composed of aluminium or iron hydroxide flocs (aluminium or ferricsulphate are used as coagulants) and impurities removed from the raw water. These sludgeshave a lower nutrient content than sewage sludge and some ferric sludges have a high heavymetal content. They also have less pathogens than sewage sludge.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

384

Table H7 Typical sludge analysis for sludge produced at Ballynore Eustacewaterworks

Parameter Concentration

pH 6.29

Conductivity (uScm-1) 150

Chloride (mg/l) 27

Suspended solids (mg/l) 1650

Ammonia (mg/l N) 0.263

Phosphate (mg/l) 0.024

Tot Aluminium (mg/l) 309.35

COD 27


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

385

H4 WASTE TREATMENT PROCESSES

Most sludges are produced by the private sector and are traditionally handled to localauthorities for disposal, which is usually by landfill, or discharging effluent into municipalwastewater treatment plants. More recently the introduction of the polluter pays principle hasled to rise in landfill charges and the search for alternative methods on economic grounds.

In 1993 a Strategy Study on the options for the treatment and disposal of sewage sludge inIreland identified 48 sub-centres throughout the country where sewage sludge could becollected and treated. This study was restricted to considering sewage sludge only but itrecommended the Inventory of Industrial waste. The results of the Inventory showed thatconsideration may be given to some form of integrated sludge management in those areaswhere production was concentrated. Active consideration is already being given to thedevelopment of centres of waste in the following areas:

• West Cork

• Mid Cork

• North Munster

• Kilkenny

• Monaghan

The schemes are in various stages of development. They include biogas generation, largescale composting, storage and mixing centres and waste fired power stations.

The West Cork Biogas Project, is an initiative from a community project, involving a thefarmers co-operative, local educational and enterprise groups, credit unions and many others.The project proposes a thermophillic anaerobic digestion plant situated centrally. This plantwould receive raw waste from agricultural sources (cattle and pig slurry), industrial sludges(particularly from the food industry) and municipal sewage sludges from local authoritysources. The biogas generated from the digestion process in the plant would be used togenerate electricity, which would be sold. The capital cost of the plant has been estimated atIR£3.3 million to handle 170 tonnes of waste a day.

McGill Environmental Systems Limited are an American company specialising in compostingof non-hazardous sludges. Their plant in Co. Cork is currently capable of processing 200tonnes of sludge a week. Non-hazardous and biodegradable sludges are mixed with a bulkingagent (sawdust, dinker and st. johns wort leaves) and stored in a specially designed containerwhere they undergo an accelerated composting process. The compost is all utilised locally ontillage land.

Irish Fertiliser Industries Ltd are planning to pre-treat sludges before drying and blending withthe fertiliser they manufacture.

Greenfields Environmental Limited are an agricultural contractor. They are working on projectsinvolving the storage and mixing of sludges and slurries. Storage areas are intended to besituated centrally in the region and consist of lagoons, tanks and areas for composting. Sludgewould be analysed locally and mixed to provide a uniform product to the landowner. The aimof this is to improve customer confidence and environmental and crop benefit.

There are also projects involving poultry litter fired power stations.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

386


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

387

REFERENCES

Inventory of Non-hazardous sludges in Ireland. Prepared for Department of the Environmentand Local Government by Fehily Timoney & Co. Cork

Central Statistics Office 1999. Crop and Livestock Survey, June 1999. http://www.cso.ie

DAFF 1994. Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Revised quantities of farm wastesand storage requirements, September 1994

http://www.cso.ie/


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

388

CONTACTS

Name Organisations

Marcia Dalton Fehily Timoney & C, Cork

Department of the Environment and Local Government

Central Statistics

Operators

appendix f germany - european commission · 2016-06-17 · under this law, the bio-waste ordinance...

Documents