wcc comments on 0408 pops waste guidelines...

TO: ANDREAS ARLT, SECRETARIAT TO THE BASEL CONVENTION

FROM: MIKE HARRIS, MEMBER OF THE INTERSESSIONAL WG ON POPS WASTE GUIDELINES

SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON DRAFT POPS WASTE GUIDELINES

DATE: 12 OCTOBER 2004

CC: PIERRE PORTAS (SBC), IBRAHIM SHAFII (SBC), CHRISTOPHER MARSHALL (ENVIRONMENT CANADA)

General Technical Guideline for Environmentally Sound Management of Wastes Consisting of, Containing or Contaminated with

Persistent Organic Pollutants

Comments on August 2004 Final Draft

On behalf of the chemical industry, I submit the following comments as a member of the small intersessional working group acting under the auspices of the Technical Working Group of the Basel Convention. The comments relate to the “final draft” dated August 2004 and intended for circulation to the 7 th Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention (COP-7).WCC believes that the August 2004 draft represents very significant progress over earlier versions. There remain, however, a number of issues that raise concerns and in our view merit further discussion. We understand that there will be an opportunity for us to raise these issues at the meeting of the intersessional working group scheduled for October 23rd in Geneva and, if necessary during COP-7 thereafter. In order to facilitate such discussions we are sending these comments in writing in advance to the Secretariat, who may wish to make them available to the participants in the meeting on 23rd October.In addition to our comments we have, wherever possible, also offered actual text. In a few cases, we have not offered – or only tentatively offered – text, as the topics are complex and merit further discussion within the intersessional working group and/or at COP-7 before text is finalised.We appreciate the opportunity to make these comments and look forward to further discussion of the outstanding issues prior to finalisation and adoption of the text of the guidelines.

Mike Harris, for the World Chlorine Council

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 ScopeParagraphs 2 and 3We accept the inclusion of PCTs and PBBs in the scope of these guidelines even though they are not POPs and not subject to the Stockholm Convention. We also note with appreciation the improvement in the relevant text since the previous draft. However, we believe that further amendments are still required in order that the text be both factually correct and unambiguous.a. We suggest that the reference to POPs be removed from the chapeau to

paragraph 2 so that it reads:“Specific technical guidelines on each of the following categories of wastes have been or will be developed:”This is necessary as the following indents refer in part to materials that are POPs and in part to materials that are not POPs. WCC also believes that the placement of the text describing the special status of PCT and PBB in these guidelines is better placed in the sub-paragraph dealing with PCB to which it closely relates, rather than in a separate paragraph.b. We therefore suggest that, for greater clarity, the text of sub-paragraph (i) of

paragraph 2 be replaced by the following:Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (including the polychlorinated terphenyls (PCTs) and polybrominated biphenyls (PBBs); these are included owing to similarities in the physico-chemical and toxicological properties of these substances even though they are not POPs and thus not subject to the Stockholm Convention);andc. Paragraph 3 can then be deleted (as the point is now covered in sub-

paragraph (i) of paragraph 2.

2. RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE BASEL AND STOCKHOLM CONVENTIONS

No outstanding comments.

3. ISSUES UNDER THE STOCKHOLM CONVENTION TO BE ADDRESSED COOPERATIVELY WITH THE BASEL CONVENTION

3.1 Low POP contentParagraph 31WCC notes the provisional definitions developed at OEWG-3 and in the light of subsequent comments. We believe that this important issue will require further discussion to deal with the remaining ‘square brackets’ in the final draft text.a. The value of 50 mg/kg for PCB seems reasonable.b. The value for PCDD / PCDF should be set at 50 µg TEQ/kg. This is because:

The lower values are so low that parties would experience major analytical problems in determining whether or not a particular waste did or did not meet the criterion for “low POP content”.

World Chlorine Council Comments on August 2004 Draft DRAFT – 05 October 2004 of 10

Certain commodity products (leather wallets, shoes, socks) in Germany were found to contain PCDD/PCDF levels up to 10 µg TEQ/kg. While these levels are admittedly exceptional and are expected to fall in future, it does not seem appropriate to require elaborate destruction technologies for consumer goods at the point where they become waste. Issues of analysis and segregation would be extremely difficult to implement.

For wastes with PCDD/PCDF content below 50 µg TEQ/kg the absence of an obligation to destroy or irreversibly transform does not relieve the obligation to deal with the waste in an environmentally sound manner. It merely allows consideration of a wider range of options to achieve the environmental objective. Where destruction or irreversible transformation is practical and environmentally sound it is not precluded.

The suggestion now appearing in §32 that there should be a linkage between “low POPs content” and “levels of destruction” (at least for solid residues) is completely unacceptable unless the 50µg TEQ/kg value is adopted for “low POPs content”. Any lower value would create insuperable problems for most, if not all, destruction techniques.

c. The value for “other POPs” should be set at 50 mg/kg. This is because: There is no reason to suppose that the “other POPs” are environmentally more harmful than

PCBs, for which a level of 50 mg/kg is generally accepted.

For wastes with POP content below 50 mg/kg the absence of an obligation to destroy or irreversibly transform does not relieve the obligation to deal with the waste in an environmentally sound manner. It merely allows consideration of a wider range of options to achieve the environmental objective. Where destruction or irreversible transformation is practical and environmentally sound it is not precluded.

The suggestion now appearing in §32 that there should be a linkage between “low POPs content” and “levels of destruction” (at least for solid residues) is completely unacceptable unless the 50µg TEQ/kg value is adopted for “low POPs content”. Any lower value would create insuperable problems for most, if not all, destruction techniques.

3.2 Levels of destruction and irreversible transformationParagraph 32WCC notes the provisional definitions developed at OEWG-3 and in the light of subsequent comments. We believe that this important issue will require further discussion to deal with the remaining ‘square brackets’ in the final draft text.General commentsWCC welcomes the greater simplicity of the approach now adopted in the light of comments on the May 2004 draft.Atmospheric emissions and aqueous dischargesWe can in principle accept the provisions suggested for atmospheric emissions and for aqueous emissions. With regard to these we would, however, suggest:a. Reconsidering the use of numbers for atmospheric emissions that are

expressed in terms of the reference conditions 11% oxygen, 101.3 kPa and 25°C. While we understand the need for using standard reference conditions, the actual resulting numbers are unfamiliar to the large number of people used to the criterion 0.1 ng TEQ/m3 that is found in several major pieces of existing legislation. There may be no better solution, but the point is worth discussion.

b. Replacing the phrase “aqueous emissions” by the phrase “aqueous discharges” in order to conform to normal terminology.

Solid residues


WCC believes that the suggestion to define “level of destruction”, as it applies to solid residues, in terms of the definition of “low POP content” has some merit, not least that of simplicity. However, we believe that it also raises some difficulties. We believe that this portion of the text requires further discussion and offer the following initial comments:

Where solid waste residues have a POPs content at or below the level defined as “low POP content” then, although the definition of low POP content is for a different purpose under Article 6 of the Stockholm Convention, it is reasonable to assume that the resulting solid residues need not themselves be destroyed or irreversibly transformed so long as they are disposed of in an environmentally sound manner.

Where the solid waste residues contain POPs at a level somewhat higher than that defined as “low POP content” it may still be the case that destruction or irreversible transformation of the residues is not the environmentally preferable option.

In either case, the decision as to whether or not a technology may be regarded as meeting the Stockholm Convention requirement for destruction or irreversible transformation in terms of the POPs content of any solid residues arising is less important than the decision as to whether the technology meets the requirements for POPs in general and results in emissions that are within acceptable limits and solid residues whose POP content is low enough that they can be disposed of in an environmentally sound manner.

A synthesis of these comments could result in text along the following lines, which we propose as a basis for further discussion:

“Solid residues:

should either be below the low POP content concentration defined in Section 3.1 or, where operation of the technology to achieve this level is not the environmentally preferable option, should in any case be capable of being disposed of in an environmentally sound manner.”

4. GUIDANCE ON ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND MANAGEMENT (ESM)We believe that it is helpful to expand the acronym in the title to this section for greater ease of reference, for example in the Table of Contents generated from the title.4.1 General ConsiderationsNo remaining comments.4.2 Legislative and Regulatory FrameworkParagraph 63a. WCC appreciates the adoption of our suggestion to conform to the text of the

Basel Declaration by including the reference to the industry sector. However, in doing so it would appear that the reference to countries and NGOs has inadvertently been lost!

b. The reference to Article 10 of the Stockholm Convention is inaccurate as it ignores §5 of Article 9 (concerning the protection of confidential information), despite the explicit reference to this paragraph in §1(b) of Article 10.

c. The reference to “public review” goes beyond the text of the Stockholm Convention, which refers only to public information and participation.

d. The reference to enshrining these principles “in legislation” is inappropriate and goes beyond the Stockholm Convention; the text should be confined to a recommendation concerning a possible “policy statement”.


Taking these points into account, we believe that this paragraph should read as follows (maintaining the text of the Basel Declaration (with ellipses where appropriate for brevity):“Public participation is a core principle of the Basel Declaration on Environmentally Sound Management and many international agreements. Paragraphs 6(g) and 6(h) of the Basel Declaration state that… the Parties and other States agree to enhance and strengthen … efforts and cooperation to achieve environmentally sound management in the following fields …

- Enhancement of information exchange, education and awareness-raising in all sectors of society; and

- Cooperation and partnership at all levels between countries, public authorities, international organizations, the industry sector, non-governmental organizations and academic institutions.

Article 10 of the Stockholm Convention requires that health and safety and other non-confidential information relating to POPs be made available to the public, and that policy and regulation development be an open process with public participation. It may be beneficial to enshrine these principles in a policy statement.4.3 Waste prevention and minimizationParagraph 69This paragraph should be repositioned. It does not relate to “waste prevention and minimization” (the topic of this section) but rather to “pre-treatment”. The paragraph should instead be inserted in Section 4.7.1 below (see comment on §114).4.4 Identification and InventoriesNo remaining comments.4.5 Sampling, Analysis and MonitoringParagraph 88Add to the end of the first bullet: “and international standards.”Paragraph 91It is important that any local or national standard should be validated against any relevant international standards to ensure comparability. Add to the end of the paragraph: “and the methods are validated against relevant international standards to ensure comparability.”Paragraph 97Add a new sentence after “period of time” to read “Field testing may also involve in situ monitoring.”4.6 Handling, collection, packaging, labelling, transportation and

storageParagraph 103In bullet (iii) replace “to the extent possible” by “to the extent practical”. Almost anything is “possible” at a price, but it would be unreasonable, for example, to expect developing countries to meet the same standards as a developed country.


4.7 Environmentally sound disposal4.7.1 Pre-treatmentParagraph 114 bisInsert the text of the present paragraph 69 (see above) here where it best fits. The advice regarding mixing is essentially a general and important caveat when considering pre-treatment of wastes. Replace “not environmentally sound” by “not normally environmentally sound” (as cases exist where mixing of wastes before destruction may be the environmentally preferred option, e.g. to optimise treatment efficiencies. Thus,“Mixing of wastes with a POP content above a defined ‘low POP content’ with another material solely for the purpose of generating a mixture with a POP content below the defined ‘low POP content’ is not normally environmentally sound. Cases exist, however, where mixing of wastes prior to waste treatment may be both necessary and the environmentally preferred option, e.g. in order to optimise treatment efficiencies.”4.7.2 Destruction and irreversible transformation methodsGeneral Issuesa. Throughout this section all quantitative information on costs, etc. should be

expressed in uniform currency units (US dollars would be conventional). The present mix of US dollars, Australian dollars, Canadian dollars and euros makes comparison of the costs of the various technologies unnecessarily difficult.

b. Throughout this section there is a potential difficulty with the naming of a selection of suppliers of a technology. On the one hand this is clearly helpful to the reader. On the other hand, UNEP’s lawyers may have a view on two potential difficulties that this raises: (i) the possibility of legal action for discrimination raised by suppliers whose names are, possibly inadvertently, omitted, and (ii) the possibility of UNEP acquiring some measure of liability for accidents and other mishaps arising if the mentioning of a company’s name is construed as some sort of ‘recommendation’. There may well be a precedent in these matters upon which the Secretariat can advise. Perhaps some sort of disclaimer text would be appropriate?

Paragraph 125Replace “information regarding these technologies of others” by “information regarding other technologies” as the reference cited deals only with emerging technologies and not with the established technologies.4.7.2.1 Alkali metal reductionChange heading to “alkali metal reduction”. Alkali metals are elements such as sodium and potassium. Alkalis are chemical compounds such as caustic soda or sodium carbonate.Paragraph 126For the same reason as for the change in the heading to this section, amend the beginning of the paragraph to read: “Process description: Alkali metal reduction involves the treatment of wastes with dispersed alkali metal. Alkali metals react with halogen (e.g. chlorine) in halogenated waste to produce an inorganic halide salt and non-halogenated waste. …”


Paragraph 132Amend to read:“Energy requirements: Immediate energy requirements are expected to be relatively low due to low operating temperatures associated with the sodium reduction process, although the production of the sodium itself is highly energy intensive.”Paragraph 140WCC is under the impression that ABB Transformatoren GmbH does not (any more) operate this process. The URL given is to a web site in Lithuanian, which may not be the most universally accessible language despite its venerable position as one of the most ancient Indo-European languages and its consequent closeness to Sanskrit. The English language version is at http://www.abb/lt/global/ltabb/ltabb100.nsf/language/us. Perhaps more seriously, an exhaustive search of the ABB web sites has not brought up any pages referring to “PCB” and “sodium”. If there is a URL that refers to ABB and alkali metal reduction, this does not appear to be it.EarthFax Engineering: Following the URL and searching the web site for this company seems to indicate that they offer only fungal bioremediation. We can find no mention of sodium reduction on this site.As only the last three companies in the list (all N American) appear to offer sodium reduction technology, our original contention that the technology has been discontinued in Europe still stands.4.7.2.2 Base-catalysed decomposition (BCD)No remaining comments.4.7.2.3 Cement kiln co-incinerationNo remaining comments.4.7.2.4 Gas phase chemical reduction (GPCR)Paragraphs 174-175The temperature of 850ºC cited in §174 is very low and could not be termed “high temperature” in terms of normal parlance for waste destruction technologies.WCC believes that the efficiencies cited in §175 can only be achieved if the process is operated at a significantly higher temperature than is mentioned in the process description in §174. Indeed, we believe that operation at temperatures as low as 850° was a significant contributing factor to the unacceptable emissions of PCDDs/PCDFs arising from the original operation of the plant at Kiwana in Australia. It is understood, however, that more recently the technology has been substantially improved – including, crucially, operation at higher temperatures.In the first sentence of §174 replace “approx. 850ºC” by “at least 950ºC”. Add a new second sentence to read: “It is important not to operate at lower temperatures as this may result in unacceptable levels of emissions of unintentional POPs such as dioxins and furans.”Add at the end of §175: “However, this level of destruction efficiency can only be achieved if the process is operated at a temperature of at least 950°C. Operation at lower temperature has been shown to result in the production of unacceptable levels of unintentional POPs, such as PCDDs/PCDFs.”


http://www.abb/lt/global/ltabb/ltabb100.nsf/language/us

Paragraph 178Add at the end of the paragraph: “so long as the process is operated at a sufficiently high temperature (at least 950°C).”Paragraph 181As the production of methane does not occur until the process is running, there is no methane available for conversion back to hydrogen until the process has started up using external hydrogen. This has implications in terms of the requirement for the supply and storage of at least some compressed hydrogen cylinders.In the first sentence delete the word “possible”. Add at the end of the second sentence: “after initial start-up.”Paragraph 188For clarity insert the words “the sole supplier” after the words “is held by”.4.7.2.5 Hazardous Waste IncinerationNo remaining comments.4.7.2.6 Mediated electro-chemical oxidation (MEO)Paragraph 213For clarity insert the acronym “PVDF” after “polyvinylidene fluoride”. This material is much better known under the name of the acronym.Paragraphs 222 and 229Insert the word “membrane” before the word “electro-chemical cell” as it is only this modern type of cell that is relevant.Paragraphs 224 and 235WCC had understood that successful trial runs had been carried out on PCBs. It would be worth checking with AEA before stating the contrary.Paragraph 233Insert the word “fully” before the word “developed” in the penultimate sentence. Again, WCC had understood that some progress had been made in this direction; it would be worth checking with AEA, given that the process is proprietary to them.4.7.2.7 Plasma arcParagraph 257The claim that the PACT process can treat “any type of waste at any concentration” is very sweeping – especially as the process is still at an early stage of commercialisation. It would be better to add the words “said to be” before the word “capable”, in keeping with the wording used elsewhere in these guidelines.4.7.2.8 Super-critical water oxidation (SCWO)Paragraph 300The only reference we can find to the Japanese plant is in a press release that reads as follows: Tokyo (JCNN) - Kurita Water Industries (TSE: 6370) and Komatsu Ltd. (TSE: 6301) have announced a supercritical water oxidation unit of practical use, which can decompose various waste fluids, wastes and sludges into


harmless materials. The two companies will collaborate on business to manufacture and sell this processing system, under the product name "AquaFlame."The Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO) technology oxidatively decomposes organic matter into water as well as carbon dioxide in the aqueous phase above the critical point of water (374 C and 22 MPa). The technology has been receiving considerable attention as a means to detoxify toxic substances of social issues, such as dioxins and PCB. However, practical application has been delayed because of technical problems, such as the unit plugging by accumulated salt that is generated during the reaction, and the unit corrosion.After obtaining the basic technologies from General Atomics of the United States, the two companies began joint development in 1997. Consequently, the companies succeeded in developing a unit equipped with the means to remove accumulated salt, which also incorporates an anti-corrosion feature as well as the outstanding performance in decomposing of organic matter that is peculiar to the SCWO technology. An operation test lasting more than 1,000 hours using a demonstration plant (with a processing capacity of 10 m3 per day) confirmed stable performance in decomposing organic matters, in removing accumulated salt, and demonstrated anti-corrosion performance and safety. Combining Kurita's water treatment technology with Komatsu's machine manufacturing experience, the companies believe they can become the first to put SCWO technology to commercial use in dealing with high salt concentrations.

This describes only a demonstration of concept and an intention to develop a commercial plant. Is there any evidence that there is now a “commercial full-scale plant operating in Japan”? If not, the text needs to be changed. If there is a commercial full-scale plant, then Kurita/Komatsu might be a much better listing as vendor than Foster Wheeler (see §301 below).Paragraph 301We have searched exhaustively on and from the URLs offered in the draft text without finding any evidence of commercialisation. The General Atomics web site seems to refer only to ‘trials’ or to ‘projects under development’. The Foster Wheeler web site does not seem to make any reference at all to SCWO technology.4.7.3 Other disposal methods when destruction or irreversible

transformation does not represent the environmentally preferable option

No remaining comments.4.7.4 Other disposal methods when the POPs content is lowNo remaining comments.4.8 Remediation of contaminated sitesNo remaining comments.4.9 Health and SafetyNo remaining comments.4.10 Emergency responseNo remaining comments.4.11 Public participationNo remaining comments.


APPENDIX 1: INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS

No comments.

APPENDIX 2: EXAMPLES OF PERTINENT NATIONAL LEGISLATION

Change title to read “… national and regional …” to cover the EU examples.

APPENDIX 3: SELECTED ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR WASTE CHARACTERIZATION

Surprising to find no reference to the UNEP guidelines on dioxins and furans.

APPENDIX 3: REFERENCES

Surprising to find still no reference to all the work done by UNIDO. This work was discussed quite a bit at OEWG-3.


wcc comments on 0408 pops waste guidelines...

Documents