Evaluation of ASR landfill impact through lysimetric tests - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
6th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SUSTAINABLE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT NAXOS ISLAND, GREECE, 13-16 JUNE 18 G. Mancini, A. Luciano, P. Viotti, D. Fino Evaluation of ASR landfill impact through lysimetric tests giuseppe.mancini@unict.it 775
NAXOS ISLAND, GREECE, 13-16 JUNE 18
308 775
The mean age of vehicles has grown in the last decade as a consequence of the economic crisis. .
Every year, end-of-life vehicles (ELV) generate between 7 and 8 million tonnes of waste in the European Union which should be managed correctly.
8
Con la fine della campagna d’incentivi governativi alla rottamazione, che obbligava i veicoli a essere demoliti in impianti autorizzati, si è assistito alla forte crescita del fenomeno dell’esportazione degli autoveicoli. Spesso accade che i veicoli vengano esportati non per essere utilizzati nei Paesi di destino, ma per essere, diversamente da quanto previsto dalla normativa comunitaria, demoliti, realizzando così una esportazione di rifiuti e non di beni e sottraendo materiale prezioso all’industria nazionale del riciclo e a quella siderurgica.
Every year, end-of-life vehicles (ELV) generate between 7 and 8 million tonnes of waste in the European Union which should be managed correctly.
9 … … ..for vehicles produced after 1980, the vehicle recovery and recycling in terms of weight percentage must compliance the 95% before January 2015 (with only 10% of this recovered through energy)
ELV Directive (2000/ 53/ CE)
..
The ultimate goal of ELV Directive (2000/ 53/ CE) of European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 this directive is to put only 5% of ELV residues (ASR) into landfills. It states:
for vehicles produced after 1 9 8 0 , the vehicle recovery and recycling in term s of w eight percentage m ust com pliance the 9 5 % before January 2 0 1 5 ( w ith only 1 0 %
2 0 9 / 2 0 0 3 .)
The EU Landfill Directive [ 1 9 9 9 / 3 1 / EC] requires reductions on all biodegradable w aste w ithin 1 7 years to 3 5 %
1 9 9 5 values m eanw hile forbidding further disposal in landfills of w astes w ith high calorific values ( higher than 1 3 0 0 0 kJ/ kg.) . ASR shows calorific values ranging from 14000 up to 30000 kJ/ kg. ALTERNATI VES TO LANDFI LLI NG ARE COMPULSORY
11
12
13
The conventional route for end-of-life vehicle recovery and recycling is determined by standard practices
metal recycling. The process steps include the pretreatment or de-pollution (e.g. removal of tires, the battery, lubricants and fuel), and shredding and sorting the vehicle to recover valuable metals.
Metals are recovered by using m agnetic separation, and constituting about 7 5 %
steelm aking processes Il residuo prodotto dal processo di demolizione costituisce circa il 25% in peso di un’automobile e stato, fino adesso, smaltito in massima parte in discarica. The rem aining 2 5 % , w hich is called auto shredder residues ( ASR)
The management
automotive shredder residue (ASR) is considered an increasingly problematic subject of worldwide concern The pressure to achieve commercial processes to deal with such a complex waste feedstock is growing year by year, also because it is increasingly considered unsuitable for landfill disposal. This is due its high fluctuating levels of TOC, PCB, sulphur, chlorine, heavy metals and contaminant oils arising from elastomers, PVC, metals and car
La gestione dei veicoli fuori uso costituisce uno dei focus delle politiche europee sulla gestione dei rifiuti. Con la Direttiva 2000/53/CE è stato imposto agli stati membri di raggiungere entro il 2015 obiettivi minimi di riciclaggio (85%) e di recupero complessivo (95%). La direttiva ha individuato in capo ai produttori di vetture il compito di assicurare il raggiungimento di questi obiettivi. In altri termini ha introdotto il cosiddetto regime della responsabilità estesa del produttore nel settore automobilistico.
The ultimate goal of ELV Directive (2000/ 53/ CE) of European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 this directive is to put only 5% of ELV residues (ASR) into landfills. It states:
for vehicles produced after 1 9 8 0 , the vehicle recovery and recycling in term s of w eight percentage m ust com pliance the 9 5 % before January 2 0 1 5 ( w ith only 1 0 %
2 0 9 / 2 0 0 3 .)
The EU Landfill Directive [ 1 9 9 9 / 3 1 / EC] requires reductions on all biodegradable w aste w ithin 1 7 years to 3 5 %
1 9 9 5 values m eanw hile forbidding further disposal in landfills of w astes w ith high calorific values ( higher than 1 3 0 0 0 kJ/ kg.) . ASR shows calorific values ranging from 14000 up to 30000 kJ/ kg. ALTERNATI VES TO LANDFI LLI NG ARE COMPULSORY
In Europa nel 2015 sono stati prodotti oltre 6 milioni di ELVs (dati Eurostat pubblicati a settembre 2017). Per quanto riguarda gli obiettivi di riciclaggio, la media riscontrata nell’Unione europea nel suo complesso risulta in linea con il target 2015, attestandosi a 87,1%. Rispetto agli obiettivi di recupero complessivo, però, il risultato ottenuto è pari a 93,4%, al di sotto del target del 95% disposto dalla Direttiva.
I dati pubblicati da Eurostat mostrano per il 2015 livelli di riciclaggio/recupero stabili rispetto a quelli rilevati nell’ultimo triennio. La percentuale di riciclaggio e reimpiego raggiunge l’84,6% del peso medio del veicolo, quasi in linea con il target dell’85% previsto per il 2015. Ampliando la lettura agli ultimi 9 anni si osserva, invece, come l’Italia non sia mai riuscita a centrare il target. La situazione peggiora se volgiamo l’attenzione agli obiettivi di recupero totale. L’Italia risulta decisamente lontano dal target del 95% previsto al 2015: i dati attestano una percentuale pari 84,7%.
treatment
ASR Injection
ASR into blast furnace, Fluidized-bed combustion, Citron’s process (heat, electric energy, gas (emission in the atmosphere), slag and ash (landfill disposal)
screw kiln pyrolysis, ultrapyrolysis) gas, oils, slag (metals recovery and landfill disposal)
separation, density separation, Argon process)
composite applications, Thermo-bath process for recycling ASR)
However, the physical nature of SR, cross contamination, unstable m arkets for recovered materials and the need for significant processing to meet market specifications, ham per significant recovery of m aterials from ASR. This generates high risk for independent investm ents in specific processes and banks reluctance in providing financial support, thus causing a further lack of stability of the market. Numerous technical, legislative, commercial and financial drivers affect fluff
that not only very few processes currently undergo developm ent, but it moreover remains to be clarified which types of process are to be preferred.
to evaluate the environmental impact of the fluff combustion (emission and deriving wastes composition). ASR combustion tests were carried out on a full scale tyres incineration plant (Anagni), specifically modified for the proper combustion of car and waste-collection residues. Both tyres and fluff deriving from end of life vehicles and white goods (WG) were alternatively burnt ASR in order: to evaluate energy recovery to evaluate fluff mass reduction
Car Fluff can be now used for RDF (CSS) production
Recupero energetico e del riciclaggio presenta delle oscillazioni notevoli nel corso degli ultimi anni segno di difficoltà legate a fattori quali la disponibilità di impianti (pochi impianti autorizzati al recupero energetico di questa frazione – o comunque a costi non competitivi con la discarica) o l’accessibilità/convenienza
L’elevato potere calorifico inferiore (PCI), lo rende interessante per il recupero energetico sia in impianti dedicati, sia come combustibile solido secondario (CSS), da impiegare in impianti industriali, come nei cementifici, in parziale sostituzione dei combustibili tradizionali. (un’ottima performance energetica (alto PCI e scarsa umidità), ma necessità di ridurre la concentrazione del cloro e di alcuni metalli (ad esempio l’antimonio, utilizzato come anti fiamma nelle plastiche) che potrebbero rappresentare un problema per il processo e per il prodotto finale (il cemento). Necessaria una migliore vigilanza sulle
di trattamento e demolizione (alti costi da sostenere e dal basso contributo economico offerto dai produttori) scarsa efficacia delle funzioni di controllo e di vigilanza che dovrebbero essere esercitate dalle amministrazioni.
Oggi in Italia, la sua destinazione prevalente è data dallo smaltimento in discarica: il fluff viene individuato dai seguenti codici dell’Elenco Europeo dei rifiuti: CER 191003* (frazioni leggere di frammentazione - light fluff- e polveri, contenenti sostanze pericolose) e CER 191004 (frazioni leggere di frammentazione - light fluff - e polveri).
Secondo gli ultimi dati pubblicati da Eurostat, nel 2015 il destino di gran parte delle quasi 180.000 t di car fluff prodotto in Italia è stato il conferimento in discarica (circa l’87%) e il 13% avviato a riciclo. Nel 2014 invece, l’88% è stato conferito in discarica, l’11% è stato recuperato come energia e l’1% riciclato.
87% landfilled 13% recycled 88% landfilled 1% recycled 11% energy recovered
Hazardous or not hazardous w aste??? Need for characterization
Which landfill???? Difficulties in fluff unique characterization due to the high heterogeneity and different origin
DOC ( 1 6 0 m g/ l > > 8 0 m g/ l) PCB ( 9 – 9 1 m g/ kg> 1 0 m g/ kg) Mineral Oils ( 1 ,5 4 – 2 ,3 7 % > 0 ,1 % )
Non Hazardous waste landfill
Hazardous waste landfill
The marked heterogeneousness characteristics of the waste, at the small (laboratory) scale, gives rise to several difficulties in
representative and reproducible samples.
fraction obtained from the particle-size analysis.
The following methodology has been proposed for solid waste characterization and leaching tests:
Deliberazione Interministeriale 27 luglio 1984 DLgs 13/03/2003 n° 36 Discarica di 2a categoria Tipo A Discarica per rifiuti inerti Discarica di 1a categoria Discarica per rifiuti non pericolosi Discarica di 2a categoria Tipo B Discarica di 2a categoria Tipo C Discarica per rifiuti pericolosi Discarica di 3a categoria
Test (leaching solution) pH Contact time Sample characteristics Liquid to solid ratio Mixing Acetic Acid pH = 5 ± 0,2 24 hours 100 gr.; f< 9,5 mm 16 Not indicated Carbonate water pH = 4,5 6 100 gr.; f < 9,5 mm 20 40 rpm
(UNI 10802) Not Controlled 24 hours 100 gr.; f < 4 mm 10 Not Indicated
Leaching tests are far from landfill conditions where leachate retention time and solid/liquid contact, within the waste heap, are sensibly different from usual laboratory operating conditions. A lysimeter was specifically designed to have a sufficiently large volume with respect to the waste characteristic size .
Design features
has a circular section (80 cm diameter) and it is equipped with temperature, pressure and humidity probes, as well as with several valves for solution extraction and biogas sampling
well as the biogas sampling
Central segment contains two layers, 40 cm thick, of fluff separated by a sand covering layer (10 cm thick). The first layer required about 150 kg of fluff (r=0,75 ton/m3) while the second about 160 (r=0,80 ton/m3).
equal surface;
the filtration process, in hydraulic terms as well as in pollutants migration ones;
annulus, from which leachate could be collected directly without going trough the lower gravel filter.
Volumes from each sector;
conductivity Metals determinations Dioxins and PCB Chlorides, sulphides, nitrates, fluorides,; Ammonia, organic Nitrogen, free cyanides, COD, BOD5 and TOC
Element Samples U.M. Element Samples U.M. Lower calorific power 21688 kJ/kg 1.2.3.4.7.8 HxCDD < 0,02 ng/kg Apparent density 0,41 g/cm3 1.2.3.6.7.8 HxCDD < 0,02 ng/kg Free cyanides < 1 mg/kg 1.2.3.7.8.9 HxCDD < 0,02 ng/kg Phenol < 5 mg/kg 1.2.3.4.6.7.8. HpCDD 578 ng/kg 4-Nitrophenol < 5 mg/kg 1.2.3.4.6.7.8.9 OCDD 4593 ng/kg 2-Chlorophenol < 5 mg/kg 2.3.7.8 TCDF 55,3 ng/kg 2,4-Dinitrophenol < 5 mg/kg 1.2.3.7.8 PeCDF 26 ng/kg 2-Nitrophenol < 5 mg/kg 2.3.4.7.8 PeCDF 22 ng/kg 2,4-Dimethylphenol < 5 mg/kg 1.2.3.4.7.8 HxCDF < 0,02 ng/kg 4-Chlorine-3-Methylphenol < 5 mg/kg 1.2.3.6.7.8. HxCDF < 0,02 ng/kg 2,4-Dichlorophenol < 5 mg/kg 2.3.4.6.7.8. HxCDF < 0,02 ng/kg 2-Methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol < 5 mg/kg 1.2.3.7.8.9. HxCDF < 0,02 ng/kg 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol < 5 mg/kg 1.2.3.4.6.7.8.HpCDF 60,6 ng/kg Pentachlorophenol < 5 mg/kg 1.2.3.4.7.8.9. HpCDF 12,5 ng/kg TOC 53800 mg/kg 1.2.3.4.6.7.8.9.OCDF 91,1 ng/kg 2.3.7.8 TCDD < 0,02 Ng/kg Sum PCDD/PCDF 29,5 Ng TE/kg 1.2.3.7.8 PeCDD < 0,02 Ng/kg PCB 1,83 mg/kg
Element (disch arge limiti) Landfill leachate (mg/l) Leaching test (mg/l) H2O CO2 CH3COOH Mean Mean Mean Mean As (0,5) 0,0589 0,045 < 0,0001 0,000 < 0,0001 0,000 0,050 0,010 Cd (0,02) 0,002 0,003 0,040 0,000 0,040 0,000 0,213 0,006 Cu (1) 0,082 0,120 0,027 0,006 0,050 0,010 0,177 0,021 Fe (2) 9,771 14,867 0,190 0,070 2,153 0,146 14,20 2,272 Ni (2) 0,825 1,184 0,001 0,000 0,010 0,000 0,227 0,021 Pb (0,2) 0,009 0,093 0,017 0,006 0,017 0,006 5,053 0,299 Zn (0,5) 0,524 0,651 < 0,0002 0,000 0,002 0,000 115,3 4,726
Elemen t Landfill leachate (mg/l) Leaching test (mg/l) H2O CO2 CH3COOH Mean Mean Mean Mean As 0,054 0,011 < 0,0001 0,000 < 0,0001 0,000 0,050 0,010 Cd 0,007 0,006 0,040 0,000 0,040 0,000 0,213 0,006 Cu 0,008 0,007 0,027 0,006 0,050 0,010 0,177 0,021 Fe 2,662 2,164 0,190 0,070 2,153 0,146 14,20 2,272 Ni 0,127 0,079 0,001 0,000 0,010 0,000 0,227 0,021 Pb 0,040 0,009 0,017 0,006 0,017 0,006 5,053 0,299 Zn 0,163 0,191 < 0,0002 0,000 0,002 0,000 115,3 4,726
Parameter U.M. Sample 1 Sample 2 Parameter U.M. Sample 1 Sample 2 pH 7,51 7,4 Chlorides mg/l 85 58 eH S/cm 984 893 Fluorides mg/l < 1 < 1 Ba mg/l 0,13 0,14 Cyanides mg/l < 0,1 < 0,1 Cr totale mg/l < 0,050 < 0,050 COD mg/l 190 205 Hg mg/l < 0,005 < 0,005 TDS mg/l 750* 726 Mo mg/l < 0,050 0,07 Sulphides mg/l 261 286 Sb mg/l < 0,050 < 0,050
mg/l < D.L.* < D.L.* Se mg/l < 0,030 < 0,030 Non Phosp.T.Pestic. Mg/l < D.L.* < D.L.* Aromatic organic solvents Benzene mg/l < 0,1 < 0,1
mg/l < 0,1 < 0,1 Toluene mg/l < 0,1 < 0,1 m-Xilene mg/l < 0,1 < 0,1 Ethylbenzene mg/l < 0,1 < 0,1 p-Xilene mg/l < 0,1 < 0,1 Nitrated organic solvents Acrilonitril mg/l < 0,1 < 0,1 Pyridin3 mg/l < 0,1 < 0,1 Chlorinated organic solvents 1,1-Dichloroethylene mg/l < 0,01 < 0,01 dibromochloromethane mg/l < 0,01 < 0,01 Dichloromethane mg/l < 0,01 < 0,01 1,1,2-trichloroethane mg/l < 0,01 < 0,01 1,1-Dichloroethane mg/l < 0,01 < 0,01 Tetrachloroethilene mg/l < 0,01 < 0,01 Trichloromethane mg/l < 0,01 < 0,01 Chlorobenzene mg/l < 0,01 < 0,01 1,2-dichloropropane mg/l < 0,01 < 0,01 Bromodichlorometane mg/l < 0,01 < 0,01 Tetrachlorometane mg/l < 0,01 < 0,01 Tribromomethane mg/l < 0,01 < 0,01 Trichloroethilene mg/l < 0,01 < 0,01 Other Leaching tests results according to UNI 1 0 8 0 2 ( dem ineralised w ater)
Element (mg/kg) Samples Element (mg/kg) Samples I II Mean I II Mean Fe 35766 34900 35333 Co 20 15 18 Zn 8392 6886 7639 Cd 17 11 14 Pb 3557 2922 3240 Sulphides 149,57 173,91 161,74 Cu 1638 2153 1896 Chlorides 35,44 36,39 35,91 Ni 128 86 107 Nitrates 5,69 5,96 5,83 Cr 118 93 106 Ammonia 0,940 0,558 0,75 As 22 19 21 Fluorides 0,13 0,17 0,15
0,00 0,40 0,80 1,20 1,60 2,00 2,40 32 64 96 128 160 Time (d) Copper (mg/l)
Sector 4 Sector 3 Sector 2 Funnel Mean
0,00 0,50 1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,00 32 64 96 128 160 Time (d) Nickel (mg/l)
Sector 4 Sector 3 Sector 2 Funnel Mean
Nickel Copper
Cadmium
0,00 0,02 0,04 0,06 0,08 0,10 32 64 96 128 160 Time (d) Cadmium (mg/l)
Sector 4 Sector 3 Sector 2 Funnel Mean
Cobalt
0,00 0,10 0,20 0,30 0,40 32 64 96 128 160 Time (d) Cobalt (mg/l)
Sector 4 Sector 3 Sector 2 Funnel Mean
0,00 25,00 50,00 75,00 100,00 125,00 150,00 32 64 96 128 160 Time (d) Zinc (mg/l)
Sector 4 Sector 3 Sector 2 Funnel Mean
Zinc
0,00 0,30 0,60 0,90 1,20 1,50 32 64 96 128 160 Time (d) Lead (mg/l)
Sector 4 Sector 3 Sector 2 Funnel Mean
Lead
0,00 0,03 0,06 0,09 0,12 0,15 0,18 32 64 96 128 160 Time (d) Arsenic (mg/l)
Sector 4 Sector 3 Sector 2 Funnel Mean
Arsenic Iron
0,00 25,00 50,00 75,00 100,00 125,00 150,00 175,00 32 64 96 128 160 Time (d) Iron (mg/l)
Sector 4 Sector 3 Sector 2 Funnel Mean
0,00 0,05 0,10 0,15 0,20 0,25 0,30 0,35 0,40 0,45 3 3,5 6 7,5 16 22,5 27 44 71 84 100 113 126 Time (days) Cumulative release % As Cd Co Cr Fe Ni Pb Cu Zn
Parameter U.M. Lysimeter Landfill Parameter U.M. Lysimeter Landfill Cr III mg/l < 0,050 < 0,050 2.3.7.8 TCDD ng/l < 0,005 <0,0001 Cr VI mg/l < 0,050 < 0,050 1.2.3.7.8 PeCDD ng/l < 0,005 <0,0002 Hg mg/l < 0,005 < 0,005 1.2.3.4.7.8 HxCDD ng/l < 0,005 <0,0002 Residual 180°C g/l 2,704 7,4 1.2.3.6.7.8 HxCDD ng/l < 0,005 <0,0003 pH
7,05 1.2.3.7.8.9 HxCDD ng/l < 0,005 <0,0002 eH mS/cm 3,055 8,45 1.2.3.4.6.7.8. HpCDD ng/l 0,006 <0,0003 Chlorides mg/l 72 2797 1.2.3.4.6.7.8.9 OCDD ng/l 0,029 <0,0004 Sulphides mg/l < 1 24,13 2.3.7.8 TCDF ng/l < 0,005 <0,0004 Ammonia mg/l 10,4 137,99 1.2.3.7.8 PeCDF ng/l < 0,005 <0,0001 Organic Nitrogen mg/l 21,2 47,70 2.3.4.7.8 PeCDF ng/l < 0,005 <0,0001 Nitrates mg/l < 1 0,69 1.2.3.4.7.8 HxCDF ng/l < 0,005 <0,0001 Fluorides mg/l 1,28 13,36 1.2.3.6.7.8 HxCDF ng/l < 0,005 <0,0001 Free Cyanides mg/l < 0,1 < 0,1 2.3.4.6.7.8 HxCDF ng/l < 0,005 <0,0001 BOD5 mg/l 270 250 1.2.3.7.8.9 HxCDF ng/l < 0,005 <0,0001 COD mg/l 2860 7550 1.2.3.4.6.7.8.HpCDF ng/l 0,005 <0,0002 TOC mg/l 835 839 1.2.3.4.7.8.9 HpCDF ng/l < 0,005 <0,0002 PCB mg/l < 0,001 <0,01 1.2.3.4.6.7.8.9 OCDF ng/l < 0,005 <0,0006
In the comparison between the different leaching tests, the acetic acid
attribution of hazardous waste, with all the economic implication in disposal terms Leaching test with carbonated water appears to be more representative for some parameters (Cd, Cu, Pb) giving concentrations similar to those characterizing the landfill leachate. Demineralised water test. All the parameters fall within the limits for waste admission in not hazardous waste landfills (with the exception of COD) but the test is not able to accurately represent the actual leaching behavior in landfill
In the comparison with fluff landfill leachate, leachate from the Lysimeter show similar distribution of metals mass ratios, close values for both BOD5 and COD, as well as the absence, in both the fluids, of organochlorinated compounds. In contrast with leaching tests results, the two metals showing higher concentrations were Fe and Zn both in the Lysimeter and in the landfill leachate. Relevant releases of Cadmium and Lead (tests with acetic acid) were instead not detected in lysimeter and landfill leachate. Current leaching tests did not show appreciable iron concentration, while this element was largely found both in the landfill and lysimeter leachate. Lisimetric tests thus appear to be more realistic in the simulation of this waste behavior, making allowance for the time evolution of the phenomena, the contact condition and the low liquid to solid ratio
NAXOS ISLAND, GREECE, 13-16 JUNE 18