Sustainable Waste Management in Germany

1. Sustainable Waste Management in Germany Dr. Helmut L. Schnurer Until 2005 Deputy Director General for Waste Management and Soil Protection at the Federal Ministry for the Environment Bonn, Germany (with some contributions of Michael Weltzin, Member of the Green Party at the German Parliament, Berlin) Dr. Helmut Schnurer

2. We did it like that for a long time Dr. Helmut Schnurer

3. increasing amounts of waste no public acceptance for new landfills increasing costs exports to distant regions created political problems environmental problems wasting of resources Situation up to 1980 in Germany and most of Europe dumping of waste was not a sustainable solution!!! Dr. Helmut Schnurer

4. In order to protect the environment we would need a sophisticated lining system with a long term reliability Long term reliability does not exist The leachate control is not perfect The collection and control of landfill gas is not efficient Landfills are harmful to groundwater and climate High-tech landfills are more expensive than many recycling techniques or waste incineration Landfills neglect the large potential of waste for resource and energy recovery – and their negative effect on climate protection Landfills are not sustainable Why did we abandon land filling as an option? Dr. Helmut Schnurer

5. Position of the Green Party in Germany: Landfillig as a shift of the problems • Landfill sites are black boxes, with unknown biological and chemical processes. • They need intensive care for generations, leaching water has to be treated for years. • Permanent danger of leaks, with heavy consequences for groundwater and soil. Such problems are usually more or less not reparable. • Methane emission from landfillingis responsible for a significant part of the global warming problem. Dr. Helmut Schnurer

6. Reduce MSW by increasing separate collection of recyclable waste Packaging (glass, metal, paper and board, plastic) Bio waste Waste paper (newspaper etc.) Textiles, shoes Bulky waste Electric equipment, batteries etc. Motivate people to join separate collection Use of economic instruments (landfill tax) However: zero waste is not possible! our realistic goal  zero waste to landfill  What was the consequence? Dr. Helmut Schnurer

7. Priority for avoidance, material recycling andenergy recovery of waste Implementation of extended producer responsibility for products Stop landfilling of bio-degradable waste Mandatory pre-treatment of solid wastes Contribute to climate protection MAIN PRINCIPLES / OBJECTVESof German (and European) Waste Policy Dr. Helmut Schnurer

8. Germany’s Approach to Resource Recovery Light weight packaging Dr. Helmut Schnurer

9. Restrictions for landfilling: All MSW has to be pre-treated since 1993 (deadline was June 2005) Regulations do not define the way – but the results: Specifications for pre-treated waste Stringent requirements to reduce and avoid emissions into air and water Steps of Development Dr. Helmut Schnurer

10. Very low contents of organic substances (TOC < 3%) Limitation of leachate concentration for a larger number of hazardous substances (a.o. heavy metals) MSW does not cope with these requirements, but must be pre-treated Requirements can be fulfilled by thermal treatment of MSW Residues from thermal treatment can be recycled, only small amounts have to be disposed of as hazardous waste (underground storage) Specifications for MSW (which may be landfilled) Dr. Helmut Schnurer

11. Stringent emission limits have been decided (17. Ordinance to the Air Pollution Control Law) New boundary value: 0.1 ng/m3 TEQ for dioxins and furans in the off gas Taking into account the state of science and technology Consequences are sophisticated flue gas cleaning systems at MSWI (including active carbon filter police filter) Current emissions fall significantly below the legal limit values Significant increase in public acceptance of MSWI New emission standards (later the EU Waste Incineration Directive) Dr. Helmut Schnurer

12. Waste incineration has developed over the past 100 years, is a mature technology with high availability Waste incineration can be used for very different waste streams (also for bulky waste, sewage sludge etc.) Grate firing can be seen as an „omnivore“ Other thermal treatment processes are only used in sometimes for special wastes (e.g. homogenious waste like sludges in fluidized bed incinerators, tyres in cement kilns) Advantages of W2E (1) Dr. Helmut Schnurer

13. Emission standards are much more stringent compared to other industrial facilities like fossil fired power stations (German standard  EU-Waste Incineration Directive) Actual emissions from W2E-facikities are significantly lower than the very low legal limit values (for dioxins/furanes lower by a factor 1000! W2E can achieve almost 100% recovery rate (electric and thermal power, construction materials, metals, acid); only 1-3% in weight are waste for disposal (fly ash, filter residues) As a consequence: The negative image of waste incineration from the 1970s and 1980s was changed in Germany into broad public acceptance (even by the Green Party!) Main reasons: transparency, public information about low emission levels – online via internet, and evidence of how poorly many landfills were performing Advantages of W2E (2) Dr. Helmut Schnurer

14. Requirements for Incineration Technology Example: MVR – Hamburg as BAT, Best Available Technology • Very (!) low emissions, • high efficiency in recovering of heat and electricity, • use of different by-products by producing acid and gypsum • use of ashes e.g. in the construction industry • no landfilling, only small amount of the input has to be deposited in underground landfills (salt mines) Dr. Helmut Schnurer example: MVR-Hamburg

15. MSW must be pre-treated instead of landfilling (deadline was June 2005) Pretreatment may be Thermal treatment, producing electrical and/or thermal energy bottom ash for construction purposes fly ash for disposal other secondary rawmaterials (metal, gypsum…) Mechanical-biological treatment, producing Inert waste for landfilling High calorific waste for energy recovery Other secondary raw materials (metals) Both alternatives have to cope with very stringent emission limits Consequences from new Waste Policy Dr. Helmut Schnurer

16. Public and private operators rely mainly on proven technology: Municipal Solid Waste Incineration (MSWI, mainly grate, a few fluidized bed ) 73 MSWI facilities are operating presently Total capacity of 17.9 million tonnes per year (65%) others use Mechanical-Biological-Treatment (MBT) 66 facilities with 7.2 million tonnes per year  (26%) (many are faced with severe technical as well as economical problems) RDF from MBT substitutes fossil fuels in coal fired power plants, cement kilns and special RDF power plants presently 2.3 million tonnes per year (8%) [Situation is similar in some other European countries, like A, CH, DK, F, NL, S] Results in Germany Dr. Helmut Schnurer

17. Experiences with MBA as incineration alternative Mechanical Biological Treatment: • separation of waste into recycling materials (metal, wood), • a solid fuel (paper, plastics) • and biological treatment of the organic residue for landfilling. Campaigned by the Greens in the early 1980ies, but finally rejected: - many technical problems, - no market for poor quality solid fuel, - landfilling is still necessary This technology is not reliable! Explosion in MBA in Göttingen 2006 Dr. Helmut Schnurer

18. During the last 20-30 years many so called „alternative technologies“ have been proposed as a „better alternative to proven technologies (like MSWI)“ in Germany and elsewhere: Pyrolysis Gasification Plasma Depolimerisation Deep well injection Mechanical biological treatment others Alternative Waste Techniques ? Dr. Helmut Schnurer

19. Pyrolysis Several small sized plants have been built Only one small facility is still operating (technical problems, need to dispose of hazardous tar) 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 at Ulm worked well First full scale facility started construction but was not finished due to technical problems and increasing costs substituted by W2E Gasification at Schwarze Pumpe Facility worked well with specific wastes Operation terminated due to not competitive high operating costs Most „alternative“ technologies failed (1) Dr. Helmut Schnurer

20. Plasma Technology Only experiments and test rigs; no large facility for waste has been realized in Germany Katalytic Depolimerisation Small test rig promised 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 MBT techniques (different kinds) Problems to cope with emission standards Problems with the quality of the high calorific fraction for being used as a secondary fuel  storage Increased costs and poor availability „alternative“ technologies failed (2) Dr. Helmut Schnurer

21. Consequences of missing reliability and availability Definitely the worst case for our environment! • examples: Napoli, Italy • and not operating MBT technology Dr. Helmut Schnurer source: WDR, German Television, DUH 2007

22. In many of the 27 EU member states still too much waste is produced – instead of avoidance and recycling – and large amounts of waste go to landfills – which is the worst option, while much better alternatives are available. Excellent solutions are existent in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany and Sweden , where less than 5% of the waste is landfilled. Typical for these states is the effective combination of legal, administrative and economical instruments (for waste recycling, recovery and disposal). Position of EU Commissioner for the Environment, Mr Janez Potoznik[EU Report from August 2012] Dr. Helmut Schnurer

23. Treatment of MSW in the EU 27 in 2006 Source: EUROSTAT Recycling (Incl. Composting) Waste-to-Energy Landfilling Dr. Helmut Schnurer

24. A recent study from EU indicates, that in case of consequent implementation of EU waste legislation in all 27 member states 72 billion Euros could be saved per year, The annual turnover of the waste management companies could be increased by 42 billion Euros, until 2020, 400,000 new jobs could be created in EU.  A similar large or even greater potential for the USA! Waste Management contributes significantly to the reduction of emissions of green house gas (highest individual contribution compared to wind- or solar-power or biofuel) Position of EU Commissioner for the Environment, Mr Janez Potoznik(continued) Dr. Helmut Schnurer

25. We use waste as a secondary raw material for production and for energy supply With the exemption of MBT only very small amounts of materials go for final disposal (landfill) Our waste management system does no longer create environmental burdens or hazards (agreed by Green Party) We contribute to the protection of our world’s climate Waste management does not create undue financial burdens to citizen or industry Recycling and energy recovery of waste don’t create social conflicts, but are widely accepted by the public Environmental, economical and social aspects are balanced  sustainability is close to reality How can we build a sustainability of waste management infrastructure? Dr. Helmut Schnurer

26. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING More information on www.bmu.de and http://europa.eu.int and from my friend and collegue, Philipp Schmidt-Pathmann Dr. Helmut Schnurer