Waste Management in Germany

1
Waste Management in Germany

• Dr.-Ing. Helmut Schnurer
• Deputy Director General
• from 1985 until 2006
• Head of Waste Management Directorate
• at the Federal Ministry for the Environment
• Bonn, Germany

2
Some Data and Figures (1)

• Until 1975 50.000 uncontrolled landfills in FRG
• Most of them closed within a few years and
  replaced by central waste management facilities
  (engineered landfills, MSWI)
• Today High Tech Industry transfers waste to
  secondary raw materials and energy
• turnover of 50 billion EURO/a
• 250 000 jobs
• Invested money 1993-2005
• 9 billion EURO for remediation and closure of gt
  500 landfills
• 3 billion EURO for new facilities to recycle and
  recover 12.5 Mill t of waste per year (bio waste,
  RDF)
• 7.5 billion EURO for new facilities to pretreate
  14 Mill t of MSW per year

3
In details....
Quelle Statistisches Bundesamt
4
MAIN PRINCIPLES / OBJECTVESof German (and
European) Waste Policy

• Priority for avoidance, material recycling and
  energy recovery of waste
• Implementation of extended producer
  responsibility for products
• Stop landfilling of bio degradable waste
• Mandatory pretreatment of solid wastes
• Contribution to climate protection
• Harmonization within European Union

5
The new closed substance cycle

• Implementing the vision of the 1992 world summit
  of Rio on sustainable development
• ?Closed Substance Cycle and Waste Management Act
  1996 in Germany (China Circular Economy)
• First priority now on substitution of resources
  (raw materials for production or secondary fuels
  for energy priority should be given to the more
  environmentally friendly way)
• Recycling must be environmentally sound,
  economically reasonable and socially viable
• Disposal of wastes only, if recycling or recovery
  is not possible (problem of enforcement!)
• Steep increase in recycling and recovery quotas
  in Germany (gtgt50 80 and higher) for many types
  of waste

6
Steps of Development (1)

• First reduce waste for disposal
• Inform / motivate citizens and industry
• Start of separate collection of recycable waste
• Promote reuse (packaging)
• Increase gate fee for landfills
• Second priority for recycling/(recovery)
• Reduce waste going to landfill (no capacities)
• Save resources (secondary raw materials/RDF)
• Introduce extended producer responsibility
  (packaging, batteries, waste oil, scrap cars,
  WEEE)
• Promote composting, paper recycling and others

7
(No Transcript)
8
High standards of recycling(achieving quotas of
50...80 )

• Main fields of actions
• Bio waste for composting / anaerobic digestion
• Waste paper
• Packaging of all types
• Construction and demolition waste
• Batteries
• Waste wood
• Industrial waste
• End of life vehicles
• Electric and electronic equipment
• ( EPR-regulations in EU)

9
Bio waste for composting / anaerobic digestion

• Separate collection of 7.3 mil tons of bio waste
  in 2004
• Composting is only allowed for separately
  collected bio-degradable wastes (listed)
• Problems with separate collection in cities
• 813 facilities for composting
• 85 facilities for digestion (wet or dry)
• Limited market for compost
• Increase of digestion due to promotion of
  renewable energy (climate protection)

10
Waste paper (graphic paper)

• Nationwide separate collection from households
  and commercial enterprises in bins or containers
• Voluntary agreement by the paper chain to use
  waste paper as a resource (mainly in other than
  production of graphic paper)
• One reason decreasing acceptance of recycling
  paper in the public
• Recycling rate gt80 (no fully closed loop)
• Paper fibres cannot recycled for ever

11
Packaging of all types

• German Packaging Ordinance from 1991 covers
• Sales Packaging
• Secondary Packaging
• Transport Packaging and
• any packaging material
• Responsibility for producer, filler or retailer
  to take back and recycle (extended producer
  responsibility)
• Establishment of separate collection and
  recycling systems by industry
• For sales packaging from households and similar
  sources Dual System with Green Dot label (at the
  beginning a monopolistic system)
• Now growing competition by alternative systems
• Minimum quotas between 60 and 75 for all
  packaging materials (achieved, even for plastics!)

12
Batteries and Accumulators

• Reduction of hazardous substances (heavy metals)
  by European regulation (first European product
  standard for new products)
• Take back obligation for producers, importers and
  retailers
• Collection system exists for take back at points
  of sale (retailers)
• System organize transport, sorting and
  recycling/disposal of collected batteries
• Surcharge on new batteries to finance this system
• Collection rate is increasing but should be be
  further improved
• Recycling of collected batteries gt60
• Recycling of car batteries gt98 mandatory
  deposit system (appr. 10 when buying a new one
  without giving back an old one)

13
End of Life Vehicles (ELV)

• European Directive on ELV is implemented
• Prohibition to use certain heavy metals (lead,
  mercury, cadmium, chromium-6 with certain
  exemptions) in new vehicles (?new product
  standard)
• Take back obligation by producer or importer
• Detailed Requirements for dismantling and
  recycling
• Recycling and recovery quotas of 85 in 2006 and
  95 in 2015 have to be achieved
• Need to change the existing techniques (either
  more dismantling before the shredder process or
  sorting out recyclable fractions from shredder
  light weight waste)

14
Waste from Electric and electronic equipment
(WEEE)

• European Directives on WEEE and RoHS are
  implemented in Germany
• Prohibition of certain heavy metals (Pb, Cd, Hg,
  Cr-6) and flame retardants in new equipment with
  few exemptions (? new product standard)
• Consumers can give back old appliances without
  being charged for at municipal collection points
  (shared responsibility between industry and
  public waste management authorities)
• Collection must achieve 5 kg per inhabitant and
  year (nationwide)
• Take back obligation for producers and importers
  from municipal collection points
• individual solution negotiable for commercially
  used equipment
• Industry must proof high quotas for reuse,
  recycling and recovery (up to 80 of collected
  waste)

15
Waste wood

• Very large commodity (from demolition, furniture
  waste, packaging, production of wood products)
• Legal ordinance with requirements and standards
  for material and energy recycling
• No priority on material or energy recycling
  (renewable source)
• Prohibition of disposing off waste wood in
  landfill
• Increasingly use for waste to energy due to
  promotion of electricity from renewable sources

16
Construction and Demolition Waste

• Voluntary agreement by industry to reduce the
  wastes going to land fills by 50 in 10 years
  (achieved)
• Good results for demolition waste, very good
  results for road excavation waste and poor
  results for mixed wastes from construction sites
• Results in 2002 (last year of data evaluation)
• Total amount of waste from construction industry
  (all kinds) 214 mill t, recycling 186 mill ?
  reuse and recycling rate of 87
• Total amount of demolition, construction and road
  excavation waste was 73 mill from which 51 mill t
  of secondary construction material was produced ?
  recycling rate of 70
• Increasing problems to market secondary
  construction materials due to conflicts with more
  ambitious goals for the protection of groundwater
  and soil (conflicts between different authorities
  with different legal requirement)
• Balance between environment in different areas,
  economy and Circular Economy has to be found
• Probably a new regulation instead of
  deregulation!

17
(No Transcript)
18
But, not all waste can be avoided, recycled, or
recovered at least not presently! What should
be done with the remaining residual waste?
Landfilling?
19
Problems with Landfilling
Wastes
Landfill gas
Landfill

Water
CPB- Reactor
Surface water
Barriers
Leachate
20
Why landfilling of wastes is not a good solution

• Mixed waste contains organic as well as hazardous
  substances
• Production of landfill gas (only 50 can be
  collected and treated the remaining 50 are a
  hazard to climate)
• Production of leachate (long term collection and
  treatment is necessary which is expensive)
• Engineered barriers will not work for ever but
  fail in ???
• Landfilling shifts problems only to the future
• Remediation of old landfills may be necessary
  (problem for future generations) but how?
  (examples)
• On the long term, landfill is the most expensive
  solution and the contrary of sustainability
• Landfill of waste, therefore has lowest priority
  in Germany (and EU)
• Exemptions for inert wastes, if not recyclable

21
Steps of Development (2)

• Third stop landfilling of untreated MSW, because
  of
• Opposition from citizens against new sites
• High costs for new landfills and aftercare
• Old landfills became contaminated sites
• Landfilling is the contrary of sustainability
• Landfilling adds significantly to the emissions
  of climate damaging gases (methane)
• New regulations limit the contents of
  biodegradable material (TOC) and of soluble
  hazardous substances

22
Treatment of solid wastes

• Balance necessary between proven techniques and
  promising new developments has to be found
• Proven solution Incineration
• Efficient energy recovery
• Recycling of ashes for construction purposes
• Off gas treatment products go for recycling or
  into underground storage in deep salt formations
  (in Germany a means of recycling)
• Alternatives (since 2002) Mechanical-Biological-T
  reatment
• Biological treatment in closed boxes to avoid
  hazardous emissions
• Fraction with low calorific value (lt6000 kJ/kg)
  may be landfilled
• Fraction with high calorific potential has to go
  for incineration with energy recovery
• German regulations do not decide on technical
  solution but request a high standard of
  immobilisation of wastes, leaving open
  possibilities for new technologies (create no
  obstacles)
• Switzerland and Austria have achieved similar
  goals already in 2000/2004
• European regulation is existent now with similar
  requirements

23
Wastes must be treated before landfilling

• Goals
• Organic substances have to be mineralized
• Soluble hazardous substances have to be destroyed
  or extracted or converted into stable condition
• Solution
• Thermal treatment destroys organic matter
• Thermal treatment extracts soluble substances or
  transfers them into stable condition
• Mechanical-biological treatment (alternative to
  incineration) needs thermal treatment for high
  calorific residues
• Additional advantage substitution of energy

24
Steps of Development (3)

• Fourth Consequences of restrictions for
  landfilling All MSW has to be pre-treated
  since 2005
• Regulations do not define the way
• but the results
• specifications of pre-treated waste stringent
  requirements to protect emissions into air and
  water

25
Integrated Waste Management System
waste
yes
secondary raw material
can be avoided
no
can be recovered
recycling or energy recovery
yes
no
can be landfilled
yes
landfill
thermal treatment
energy
no
26
Abfallwirtschaft im Jahr 2001
27
Waste Management in Germany in 1990
Landfill 28 Mill tons
34 Mill tons of MSW
Waste Incineration 6 Mill tons
28
What are the solutions in Germany?

• Waste incineration with efficient energy use and
  stringent emission control has priority
• Mechanical-biological treatment with energy
  recovery of the high calorific fraction has
  second priority
• Co-incineration of certain wastes in fossil fired
  power plants and cement kilns is used
  increasingly ( also secondary fuel to substitute
  fossil fuel in district heating, paper mill,
  chemical industry, tyre-production, metal
  affinery, even food production)
• Anaerobic digestion of organic wastes with energy
  use of the bio-gas is increasing
• Common denominator thermal treatment which has
  achieved political acceptance in Germany, even in
  the Green Party (pre requisites are limitation to
  residual waste and stringent emission standards)

29
Emissions from waste incineration in Germany (per
100 00 t of MSW)
Before 1990
Today
210.000 t NOX410.000 t SO2 180 kg
Cd 130 kg Hg 6 g Dioxin
36.000 t NOX 0,9 t
SO2 1,2 kg Cd 1,2
kg Hg 0,003 g Dioxin
30
Steps of Development (4)

• Fifth Solutions in Germany (public and private
  operators)
• Rely on proven technology Municipal Solid Waste
  Incineration (MSWI, mainly grate)
• 73 MSWI facilities are operating presently
• Total capacity of 17.9 million tons per year
  (65)
• Mechanical-biological-treatment (MBT)
• 66 facilities with 7.2 mill t/y (26)
• Co-incineration in coal fired power plants and
  cement kilns
• presently only 2.3 mill t/y, 8
• Praxis is similar in some other European
  countries like A, CH, DK, F, NL, S

31
alternative Technologies failed (1)

• Thermoselect
• One facility built at Karlsruhe
• Never reached specifications/continuous operation
  ? shut down ? loss of 400 mill
• Schwel-Brenn-Verfahren
• Developed by experienced company (Siemens)
• Pilot plant al Ulm worked well
• First full scale facility started construction
  but was not finished due to technical problems
  and increasing costs
• Gasification at Schwarze Pumpe
• Facility worked well with specific wastes
• Operation terminated due to not competitive high
  operating costs

32
alternative Technologies failed (2)

• Pyrolysis
• Several small sized plants were built
• Only one is still operating (technical problems
  and how to dispose hazardous tar)
• Plasma Technology
• Only experiments and test rigs no large facility
  for waste has been realized
• Katalytic Depolimerisation
• Small test rig promises to transfer waste into
  diesel
• No large facility has proven to be available for
  mixed waste
• Deep well injection
• In theory an ideal solution for organic sludge
• Technical realisation failed

33
Lessons to be learned

• Established technologies for defined and clean
  substancies dont work autimaticly for
  heterogeneous wastes ? MSW chameleon
• Alternative technologies have to cope with
• Existing stringent emission standards
• Warrant reliable continous operation
• Verify a complete analysis of inputs/outputs
• Proof of reliable costs (invest, operation,
  maintenance)
• If a solution for managing the arising wastes is
  needed urgently proven technology is
  recommended
• Decision to rely on alternative technology can
  only be recommended, if disposal of arising
  wastes will be secured in case of the new
  technology system fails

34
A new Experience Waste Management contributes to
Climate Protection(Research Report 205 33 314
BMU/UBA/Oeko-Institut/ifeu, 8/2005)

• Methane-emissions from dumps are 21-times more
  effective than CO2
• Out phasing landfills for solid waste in Germany
  has reduced such gas emissions significantly
• Incineration of organic waste has no impact on
  climate change
• Outphasing landfill and other waste activities
  contribute to a total reduction of 46 mill t CO2
  equivalents from 1990 until 2005 (which is the
  highest individual contribution to climate
  protection in Germany)
• Mayor contributions for reductions aside out
  phasing of landfills are
• MSWI and Co-incineration (substitution of fossil
  fuel)
• Metal recycling
• Paper recycling
• Glass recycling
• Total reductions from 1990 until 2020 are assumed
  to be 50 mill t, mainly by not landfilling (76),
  MSWI (9), co-incineration (7) and material
  recycling (5)
• The reduction potential for the old EU (15 MS)
  could be 134 mill t CO2 equivalents, almost 100
  mill t from terminating landfilling!the (USA?)

35
Landfills are significant emitters of climate
changing gases
Organic substances in MSW lead to the generation
of methane. Reduction of emissions are possible
by- reduce landfilling of wastes-
pre-treatment of wastes- improved gas collection
36
(No Transcript)
37
(No Transcript)
38
THANK YOU FOR LISTENING AND FOR DISCUSSION
More information on www.bmu.de and http//europa.e
u.int