hempen doc

8/11/2019 Hempen Doc

1/7

CONFERENCE THE FUTURE OF RESIDUAL WASTE MANAGEMENT IN EUROPE 2005Status and Trends of the Residual Waste Treatment Options in Germany

Ms. Susanne Hempen

STATUS AND TRENDS OF RESIDUAL WASTE TREATMENT INGERMANY

Susanne Hempen

Federal Ministry of Environment, Robert-Schumann Platz 3, D-53175 Bonn, Germany

1. ABSTRACT

Germany introduced a landfill ban for untreated biologically degradable organic waste that entered into force on 1stJune 2005. The article describes the motives that go back to the early 90s and the legal development of the landfillban. The difficulties and success transforming the waste management from a disposal dominated infrastructuretowards a system contributing to climate protection are demonstrated.

2. OVERVIEW ON THE MANAGEMENT OF RESIDUAL WASTE IN GERMANY

The late 1980s were characterised by economic growth and an increase of waste at the same time.Landfilling was the dominant waste treatment method. Apart from a pressuring space problem, italso became evident that the standard practice of dumping untreated waste in inadequately linedlandfills led to soil, surface and groundwater contamination and to emissions of climate-changinglandfill gas. The quantitative problem of waste volume was accompanied by a qualitative

problem, the harmful substances within the waste. In the 70s there were approximately 50.000landfill sites in Germany. Many of them became contaminated sites and still require aftercare.Yet, there was little public acceptance for establishing new waste management facilities, be itincineration plants, compost plants or even landfills. This was prompted by fears of wastetreatment facilities, most of all incinerators, putting out harmful air pollutants (primarily dioxins,heavy metals and particulates) that were liable to cause health and environmental problems.

2.1 Waste Management Act

A first attempt to solve these problems was made by the adoption of the first Waste ManagementAct (Abfallgesetz) from 1986 which set a legal framework for the treatment of waste. The wastehierarchy: waste avoidance before waste recovery before waste disposal was established. Onlywaste not suitable for recovery due to technical, environmental or economic reasons- should bedisposed off. In addition, the foundation for takeback obligations and the principle of producerresponsibility were set. On the basis of the Waste Management Act several ordinances aiming atthe total reduction of waste volume and the reduction of harmful substances were established e.g.the Waste Oil Ordinance, Solvent Ordinance and the Packaging Ordinance. The WasteManagement Act also laid down the option to set technical standards for the treatment of waste.Although the act could not set up legally binding standards in form of ordinances, requirementscould be established via Technical Instructions which acted as guidelines. Despite the attempts toreduce the volume of waste going to landfill and the progress in land filling techniques, there wasa recognition growing that the disposal of waste with organic and soluble substances does notsupport environmentally safe landfilling also over the long term. In 1990, the German AdvisoryCouncil on the Environment recommended 1990 in a special report on waste management thatresidual waste is only to be landfilled after conversion to a mineral like or ore-like form, thus

requiring thermal treatment.


2/7


Ms. Susanne Hempen

2.2 Technical Instructions on Waste from Human Settlements

Against this background, the standards for waste treatment and disposal were redefined in theearly 1990s. In 1991, the Technical Instructions on Waste from Human Settlements (TechnischeAnordnung Siedlungsabfall, TASI) were approved and entered into force on 1 June 1993. The

objectives of the Technical Instructions were:

To recover as much unavoidable waste as possible To reduce the content of harmful substances in waste as far as possible To ensure an environmentally compatible treatment and landfill of waste for disposal

It was envisaged to minimise waste going to landfill via an integrated waste management conceptthereby combining recovery measurements and the reduction of harmful substances. The separatecollection of certain waste streams, in particular biowaste, is seen as a prerequisite for effectivematerial recycling and was established as a general guideline for waste management.

The Technical Instructions on Waste from Human Settlements lay down requirements on thelocation, design and operation of landfills and on the composition of waste to be accepted forlandfilling. In order to meet the landfill classification criteria, waste with biologically degradableconstituents has to be made inert and stabilised by treatment prior to landfill. Limits are laiddown for residual quantities of organic material (measured as ignition losses and total organiccontent, TOC) and eluates (mostly heavy metals). The stringent requirements were unattainablefor the mechanical-biological treatment facilities at the time. To enable the waste infrastructure toadapt, a transition period of twelve years was granted. The competent authorities could permitexceptions allowing landfilling of untreated waste for a maximum of twelve years. From the

beginning, the Technical Instruction on Waste from Human Settlements was controversiallydiscussed. The high costs implementing the requirements, in particular establishing expensive

incineration plants, and the question of the permissibility of mechanical-biological treatmentprompted many authorities to query the requirements or even seek means of bypassing them.Section 2.4 of the Technical Instruction on Waste from Human Settlements allowed exemptionsregarding the landfill of the remains from mechanical biological waste treatment and proved to beopen to abuse. An additional problem was that only the authorities but not the landfill operatorsor waste producers were obliged to pursue the standards.

2.3 Further regulations

The development towards incineration of waste required emission standards. In 1990 theSeventeenth Federal Pollution Control Act (17. Bundes-Immissionsschutz-Verordnung) came

into force regulating incinerators for waste and similar combustible material. Emission limitswere set among others for dioxins, furans (0,1ng TEQ/m3) and heavy metals. As a consequence,incinerators had to install complex filters to recover harmful substances. Existing incinerators hadto be upgraded or taken out of use within a six year transitional period. New incinerators had tooperate within the limits from the outset. The incineration of residual waste guarantees thatorganic substances are reliably destroyed and that harmful substances are made inert or areextracted by flue gas scrubbers. As by-products, metals are separated for recycling and the slagcan be reused after reprocessing. The energy output can be recovered as heat and electric power.The flue gas ashes are to be disposed of under ground e.g. in salt mines in order to exclude themfrom the biosphere.


3/7


Ms. Susanne Hempen

In 1996 the Waste Management Act was amended now called the Closed Substance Cycle andWaste Management Act (Kreislaufwirtschafts- und Abfallgesetz). Among other things the termwaste for recovery, originating in EU law, was introduced. In addition, the concept of dual wastemanagement was brought in, making not only municipalities responsible for their waste but alsothe private sector. The new law made commercial operators accountable for their waste suitable

for recovery. Public authorities remain responsible for domestic waste and for commercial wastethat is not recoverable.

2.4 Inconsistent Implementation of the Technical Instructions on Waste from HumanSettlements

The extension clause offering the option of landfilling un-pretreated waste was differentlyimplemented within the Federal States and led to an inconsistent implementation of the TechnicalInstructions on Waste from Human Settlements. In consequence, some municipalities invested inmodern state-to-the art incinerators whereas others still filled up their disposal sites. In addition,the distinction between waste for recovery (the responsibility of the producer) and waste fordisposal (responsibility of municipalities) as laid out in the Closed Substance Cycle and WasteManagement Act was sometimes difficult to put into practice. Some commercial operators triedto exploit this difficulty by declaring waste for disposal as waste for recovery, thus evading thefees for obligatory municipal disposal. This false declaration also led to sham recovery and wasused to circumvent the regulations of the Technical Instructions on Waste from HumanSettlements. After superficial sorting solely to justify declarations as waste for recovery commercial waste often ended up in landfills belonging to municipalities that had not yetcomplied with the Technical Instructions. Consequently, waste was withheld from the verymunicipalities that had invested more in their waste management infrastructure and chargedhigher fees as a result. This development jeopardized the environmental goals of the Technical

Instructions on Waste from Human Settlements and the Closed Substance Cycle and WasteManagement Act. It became a matter of urgency to put a halt to those developments.

2.5 Waste Storage Ordinance

The Ordinance on Environmentally Compatible Storage of Waste from Human Settlements(Abfallablagerungsverordnung) entered into force in March 2001 and enacted necessarymodifications to the Technical Instruction:

The Waste Storage Ordinance is binding for all parties involved. A direct legal obligationis placed on the waste owner and landfill operator whereas before the requirements were

addressed to the competent bodies only. The Ordinance does not grant any exemptions permitting untreated waste to be landfilled

after 1 June 2005. Biologically degradable waste must be treated before landfilling from 1June 2005.

The Ordinance put state-of-the art mechanical biological treatment facilities with thermaltreatment on an equal footing with incineration plants.

The objectives of the Ordinance on Environmentally Compatible Storage of Waste from HumanSettlements were backed up by two other regulations the Thirtieth Federal Immission ControlOrdinance (30. Bundes-Immissionsschutz-Verordnung) and the amended Seventeenth FederalImmission Control Ordinance (17. Bundes-Immissionsschutz-Verordnung). As the Waste Storage

Ordinance also permitted mechanical-biological treatment, emissions standards for mechanical-biological treatment plants corresponding with the requirements set for incinerators, are laid


4/7


Ms. Susanne Hempen

down in the Thirtieth Federal Immission Control Ordinance. Mechanical biological treatmentfacilities are to be in housed and have to meet emission standards that require regenerativethermal oxidation technology (RTO). Exiting plants are to be refitted or taken out of service by1st. March 2006. The amended Seventeenth Federal Immission Control Ordinance introduced thesame limits for key pollutants such as heavy metals and dioxins for waste co-incineration as

apply for waste incinerators. The alignment of standards was essential in order to ensure a highquality of recovery and avoid eco-dumping through mechanical biological treatment of waste.

3. BAN ON LANDFILLING OF UN-PRE-TREATED WASTE

Since 1stof June 2005 untreated biologically degradable waste is no longer allowed to be storedin landfills. The critical question was and to a certain extend still is, whether the existingtreatment capacity is sufficient to deal with the amount of residual waste. The major uncertaintyremains the actual amount of commercial waste similar to household waste. There is little dataavailable since for this waste stream the producer is responsible to either recover the waste orhand it to the municipalities as waste for disposal. Different sources evaluate the potential volumeof commercial waste between 2-7 million tons per year. Contrary to this, data on household wastefor disposal including bulky waste and commercial waste for disposal are sufficient.

Table1. Waste Volume and treatment capacity in 2005 in million tons

Waste for disposal Million tons

Municipal waste and bulky waste for disposal 16.21Commercial waste for disposal 4.161Subtotal 20.37

Sorting residues, contraries/compost plants 0.44Sorting residues, contraries/sorting plants 1.29Solid recovered fuels from MBT 2.39Subtotal 4.13

Total amount of waste for disposal 24.5Source: 3. Fortschreibungsbericht der LAGA, November 2004

At present there are 58 mechanical-biological treatment plants and 67 waste incinerators with atotal treatment capacity of 22.55 million tons waste available.

Table 2. Treatment capacity in 2005

Treatment capacity Million tons

Incineration plants 16.34

Mechanical biological treatment plants 6.22

Total treatment capacity 22.56

Source: 3. Fortschreibungsbericht der LAGA, November 2004

1Please note that the data on commercial waste are estimations


5/7


6/7


Ms. Susanne Hempen

Whereas in 1990, just below 5 million tonnes out of 38.8 million tons household waste wereseparately collected and recycled this quadrupled in 2001 to more than 20 million tons. Therecycling rate increased from 12 % in 1990 to more than 46 % in 2001 and until today continuesat this level2. Including material and recovery of household and bulky waste an overall recovery

rate of 53 % was achieved in 2001.The amount of un-pre-treated waste from households going directly to landfill decreased from28.77 million tons in 1990 to 8.36 million tons in 2001 and should end completely in 2005. Inconsequence, the numbers of landfill sites decreased over the years. Whereas in 1990 there wereover 8000 sites in use the number of currently operating landfill sites is below 300.

Table 4: Development of landfill sites in Germany

Source:Bundesumweltministerium

The rise in recycling and the increase of waste treatment before being landfilled resulted in asignificant reduction of climate relevant gases. In total, the equivalent of 46 million tons CO 2were saved between 1990 and 2005 by the waste treatment sector. Of particular importance is the

reduction of methane emissions through decreasing the amount of un-pre-treated waste andfinally banning the disposal of organic biodegradable waste on landfill sites. This measure hascontributed 86 % to the total savings.

Table 5: Reduction of methane emission (in CO2equivalents)

Year Million tons

(1990=100)

1990 31.5 (100)

1992 31.3 (99)

1994 27.8 (88)

1996 22.9 (73)

1998 18.6 (59)

2000 14.4 (46)

2004 10.5 (33)

2012 (estimate) 2 (7)

Source: Bundesumweltministerium

2 Figures include the deduction of sorting and treatment residues.

Year Number of landfill sites

1990 82731993 5621995 4721997 3721999 3762004 2972010 27-111 (estimate)


7/7


Ms. Susanne Hempen

The reduction of 46 million tons CO2emissions equals 20 % of the agreed total reduction targetsto be achieved in 2005 within the frame of the Kyoto protocol. It is estimated that by 2020 afurther 9 million ton CO2 equivalents can be saved by considering the following measures:

Increase material recycling of paper, glass, plastic and metal Increase of co-incineration and thermal recovery of waste Increase of co-generation of heat and power in incineration plants Increase separate biowaste collection and recovery

A recent study shows that if the EU-15 would introduce a similar ban of landfilling un-pre-treatedwaste, potentially 134 million tons CO2 equivalents could be avoided between 2000 and 2020.This is equivalent to 11 % of the post Kyoto maximum target of a 30 % emission reduction in2020. Already the consequent implementation of the EU Landfill Directive (reduction of

biodegradable waste by 65 % in 2016) could reduce the emissions by 74 million tons CO2equivalents. This illustrates the potential waste management has to contribute to climate

protection.

LIST OF REFERENCES

Dr. Claus-Gerhard Bergs, Dr. Claus-Andre Radde (2005). Der Werdegang von TA Siedlungsabfall undAbfallablagerungsverordnung ein kritischer Rckblick, Mll und Abfall, vol.5, p. 253-259.

Gnter Dehoust, Kirsten Wiegmann, Uwe Fritsche, Hartmut Stahl, Wolfgang Jenseit, Anke Herold, Martin cames,Peter Gebhardt, ko-Institut e.V. (2005). Statusbericht zum Beitrag der Abfallwirtschaft zum Klimaschutzund mgliche Potentiale, Ufoplan, FKZ 205 33 314, Umweltbundesamt.

Jrgen Giegrich, Regine Vogt, IFEU-Institut Heidelberg (2005), Beitrag der Abfallwirtschaft zur nachhaltigenEntwicklung in Deutschland Teilbericht Siedlungsabflle, Ufoplan, Projekt FKZ 203 92 309,Umweltbundesamt.

Lndergemeinschaft Abfall; Bericht der Lndergemeinschaft Abfall (LAGA). Umsetzung derAbfallablagerungsverordnung - Dritter Fortschreibungsbericht der LAGA, November 2004.

Sachverstndigenrat fr Umweltfragen: Sondergutachten Abfallwirtschaft, Bundestags-Drucksache 11/8493.

hempen doc

Documents