CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 1

Initiatives in France for disposal of treated wood waste

Claire Cornillier - CTBA

By :• Government• Stakeholders of wood sector• Waste management companies

CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 2

Iniatives by government

• Classifies treated wood waste in 2 categories according to risk assesment :– Non hazardous waste– Hazardous waste

• Gives a specific codification for wood waste according origin and risk categories

• Excludes wood waste containing organohalogenes or heavy metals as wood waste fuel in combustion equipments

• Forbides to landfill all wood waste

CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 3

Regulation defines 3 categories of waste according to risk assessment

Trated wood waste

Hazardous

Non inert

Risk+

Hazardous waste

Non hazardous waste but also non inert waste (domestic waste and assimilated)

Inert waste-

Category

CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 4

What is hazardous waste ?

• Waste showing any of the hazardous properties (14) or containing substances classified as hazardous and at a total concentration exceeding a threshold level

• Main hazardous properties available for treated wood waste– H6 : very toxic, or containing very toxic substances at a total C

0,1%, or toxic, or containing toxic substances at a total C 3%– H5 : harmful, or containing harmful substances at a total C 25%– H14: ecotoxic (not yet specificed)

CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 5

Hazardous properties of treated wood waste can be assessed

Treated wood waste

Toxic properties : H6, H5

according to the waste chemical composition

First assessment

Hazardous waste Non hazardous waste

Ecotoxic property : H14

not yet specified

?Second assessment

CCA, CCB, CC, creosote

All other products to treat wood

ACQ ?

CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 6

Gives a specific codification for wood waste according origin and risk categories

HAZARDOUS WASTE NON HAZARDOUS WASTE

Waste from wood processing and the production paper

Cardboard, pulp, panels and furniture

03 01 04* : sawdust, shavings, cuttings, wood, particule board and veneer containing dangerous substances

03 01 05 : sawdust, shavings, cuttings, wood, particule board and veneer other than those mentioned 03 01 04

Waste packaging, absorbents, wiping, …

15 01 10* : packaging containing residues of or contaminated by dangerous substances

15 01 03 : wooden packaging

Construction and demolition waste

(including excavated soil from contaminated sites)

17 02 04* : wood containing or contaminated with dangerous substances

17 02 01 : wood

Municipal waste including separately collected fractions

20 01 37* : wood containing dangerous substances

20 01 38 : wood other than mentioned in 20 01 37

CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 7

Initiatives by stakeholders of wood sector

• To use wood waste energy recovery

• To recycle wood waste in particule board

• To document C&D wood waste

• To set up a dedicated pressure treated wood waste management system

CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 8

To specify the regulation of wood waste fuel, CTBA with wood industry

• Defines waste wood fuels in terms of chemical composition, taking into account :

– combustion regulation

– wood additives, their origin and their concentration into the wood waste

– natural content of wood in heavy metals, and in organochlorines as PCP (environmental contamination)

• Sets up specifications on the basis of an analysis of the different waste resources :

– pallet chips

– industrial waste

– non specified waste

CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 9

Chemical compositionof wood waste fuels

Additives Natural concentration (ppm) Substance or compound

Use ppm Max mean Max value Threshold proposal

(ppm) As P < 7000 1,4 6,8 +10 Cd C < 5000 0,7 3,8 +10 Cr P, C < 10000 22,6 130,0 +100 Cu P, C < 6000 21,9 400,0 +400 Mn C ? 180,6 1100,0 / (Pb) C < 5000 29,0 340,0 +100 Zn C < 5000 228,0 228,0 + 200

Total < 1000 Cl P, G < 10000 1100,0 11890,0 10000 (F) P ? 40,0 490,0 5000 N G < 50000 5000,0 34100,0 50000 S G ? 700,0 8800,0 ?

Total organohalogene (PCP, lindane, aldrine,

endosulfan Pyréthrinoïdes, triazoles)

P < 1000 3,8 / 10

PAH (creosote) P < 25000 3,1 15,6 1000 B P < 1000 15 60,0 1000 Sn P < 1000 1,7 10,0 1000

Quats P < 5000 / / 5000 Glues and resins G, C < 150000 / / 150000

P = preservation / G = glue / C = coating

CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 10

A specification example :industrial wood waste fuel

• In the case of CCA, copper based products, organohalogenes and creosote, any off-cuts after treatment to be discarded

• In the case of metallic pigments (Cd, Cr, Zn) any off-cuts after finishing to be discarded

• PVC containing off-cuts to be discarded

• Panels and glues containing chlorine based hardeners not to be used

• Metals, organohalogenes, PAH, Chlorine levels to be checked according to previous thresholds

CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 11

European Panel Federation defines requirements of wood waste for recycling in particule board

Substances Threshold (ppm) Arsenic 25 Cadmium 50 Chromium 25 Copper 40 Plomb 90 Mercure 25 Fluorine 100 Chlore 1000 Pentachlorophenol 5 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.5

CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 12

CTBA study of C&D wood waste chemical analysis in progress

• 1.6 million tons in France• Mainly non hazardous waste and can be recycled

or recovered in energy, but some hazardous (CCA)• Up to now, burned on building site, landfilled or

recycled in particle board

CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 13

CTBA study of C&D wood waste chemical analysis in progress

• Never documented by chemical analysis• 45 samples of crushed wood waste from

construction sites, restoration sites, demolition sites, and C&D facilities

• First results show some contaminations by Pb, Zn, Cu, Cr, As, between 10 and 1000 ppm

CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 14

What is a dedicated waste management system ?

• Principle « extended responsibility for the producer »• For example in France : tires, batteries• Most regulatory, some voluntary• Involvement of all stakeholders :

– Producers, to organize and finance– Distributors, to take a part in collection– Users, who can remove, sort and collect– Local communities, to take a part in collection– Government, to regulate and control– Companies to collect, treat, recycle, or dispose of

• Integration of the cost of the end of life of the product

CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 15

French context for pressure treated wood

• Mainly pressure treated softwood for outside uses• Mainly creosote and CCA over the last 40 years• Decreasing of creosote but CCA increasing

considerably oven the last 20 years• Pressure treated wood coming out of service :

hazardous waste• No efficient waste management for pressure

treated wood removed from service : the principle « polluter pays » doesn’t work

CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 16

French context for pressure treated wood

• Restriction of uses of arsenic in wood preservation (directive n°2003/2/CE and « décret » n°2004-1227) : application the most strict principle « reduction at source »

• For the new preservative product, like ACQ, also need for specific management

• If no improvement, risk of pressure treated wood market disappearance

• A new association of wood pressative suppliers and wood treaters, to improve the pressure treated wood waste management : ARBUST

CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 17

Objectives of the study• To evaluate the parameters influencing the

feasibility– Characteristics of pressure treated wood waste– Amount of pressure treated wood in service and

applications– Regulation– Stakeholders of the market (producers, distributors,

importators, wood preservatives suppliers, users and professional organizations)

– Economic data of the market– Current pressure treated wood waste management– Available means for collection, disposal, and costs

• To define the priority actions to improve pressure treated wood waste management

CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 18

Main Results

• Pressure treated wood market– Creosote– Metal formulations (CCA, CCB, …)

• Pressure wood waste amount– Estimated from the service life– Collected today

• Data of available solutions of disposal• Proposal approaches to set up a dedicated

waste management system

CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 19

Creosote treated wood market

• Few main applications :– Rail ties– Poles

• Limitation of professional and industrial uses, with exclusions

• Duration of life between 30 and 40 years• Few stakeholders• No signifiant importation or exportation• Decrease in consumption over the past

40 years

CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 20

Estimated amount of creosote treated woodcoming out of service for the next 50 years

0

50 000

100 000

150 000

200 000

250 000

1960

1963

1966

1969

1972

1975

1978

1981

1984

1987

1990

1993

1996

1999

2002

2005

2008

2011

2014

2017

2020

2023

2026

2029

2032

2035

2038

2041

2044

2047

2050

2053

2056

2059

year

t

rail ties

poles

other creosote treated wood products

Creosote wood coming out of service

Modelisation

CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 21

Creosote treated wood waste amount

• Estimation from service life– For the next 20 years : constant about 200 000

t/year– Afterwards : a steep decrease to 110 000 t/year– Mainly SNCF rail ties

• Very different from estimated amounts by users (SNCF, EDF)

CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 22

Metal treated wood market

• For the last 20 years : diversification and increase, in particular for outside equipments

• Before 2 traditional uses : poles and stakes• But today limited for professional and

industrial uses• Divided in 6 sectors, with different service life• French impregnators used mainly CCA• For the outdoor equipments, more than 80%

from importation, so right now importation more than 50% of French market

• Mainly imported wood is treated by CCB

CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 23

Estimated amount of metal treated woodcoming out of service for the next 30 years

0

100 000

200 000

300 000

400 000

500 000

600 000

700 000

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

2022

2024

2026

2028

2030

2032

2034

year

t

poles (30 years)stakes (20 years)civil engineering structure (30 years)framing (50 years)siding (30 years)outdoor equipments (10 years)metal treated wood coming out of service

CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 24

Metal treated wood waste amount

• Estimation from service life– Very different of estimated amounts consumers– For the next 20 years increase from 130 000 t/year to

600 000 t/year with a lot of outdoor equipment, after constant

– For the next 10 years mainly CCA and CCB, after mainly organic copper

CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 25

Distribution of metal treated woodcoming out of service in the next 30 years

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

20

26

20

27

20

28

20

29

20

30

20

31

20

32

20

33

20

34

20

35

year

t

C

CC

CCB

CCA

CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 26

Available solutions for disposal : initiatives by waste management companies

• Mainly thermal treatment– Traditional– Specific, but still in development, except one solution

(SIDENERGIE)

• Estimated cost : 200 €/t• Localisation on a map

CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 27

Specific thermal treatments

Type R E company Creo-sote

CCX

Processing t/year

Potential processing

t/year Cost

Processing in 2004

Area

Thermolysis (<450 °C) with charcoal

x x Sidenergie x 18 000 22 000

9 000 France

(46)

PGI (pyrolysis gasification inerting)

x Ancor x x 50 000

nc France

(40)

Charterm (pyrolysis low temperature)

x x Thermya x x 10 000

nc France

(33)

R : Recycling or Reuse 150€/t x : yes E : Energy recovery 150 €/t < 300€/t x* : waiting for validation nc : not communicated 300€/t < 450€/t

CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 28

SIDENERGIE : Charcoal production from creosote treated wood

• 500 °C thermolysis with combustion of gazes• Charcoal evaluated by toxicologists and approved

for “barbecue uses”• 22000 t/y treatment capacity

CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 29

THERMYA : Chartherm process

• Low temperature pyrolisis under inert gas• Energy self sufficient system• Mechanical separation of metals from carbon• 1t of wood 280 kg of carbon + 50 kg metals• Industrial markets for graphitic carbon• Pilot plant developed (10 000 t/y)• Project to develop and operate full scale plants

(30 000 t/y)

CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 30

ANCOR : PGI process

• High temperature pyrolysis (1200 °C)• Energy production from gases combustion• Pilot equipment under test (300 kg/h), with other

carbon containing products (tires)• Mineral fraction including metals can be recycled

(glass)

CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 31

Traditional thermal hazardous waste treatments

Type R E company Creo-sote

CCX

Processing t/year

Potential processing

t/year Cost

Processing in 2004

Area

Hazardous waste incineration

x Tredi x x 30 000 70 000

nc France

(38, 67, 76)

Hazardous waste incineration

x SARP

industrie x x nc nc

nc

France (78, 33)

Coincineration in cement factory

x SCORI x x* 40 000 400 000

710 France

(38, 18)

Hazardous waste Incineration

x Egger x nc

nc France

(88)

R : Recycling or Reuse 150€/t x : yes E : Energy recovery 150 €/t < 300€/t x* : waiting for validation nc : not communicated 300€/t < 450€/t

CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 32

Traitement des bois t

Incinerator

Incinerator

Incinerator

THERMYA

ANCOR

SIDENERGIE

Incinerator

Incinerator

Incinerator

Cement Kiln

Cement kiln

All treated wood

Traitement des bois

Radius : 150 km

Only creosote treated wood

1 / 5 550 000

Hazardous wood waste facilities location

CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 33

Proposal approaches to set up a dedicated waste management system

• To separate in 2 waste streams – Poles and rail ties : easy to collect– Other products : more difficult to collect (from consumers, building,

agriculture, local communities)

• To work in priority for the collection of the second stream• To take some simulation to assess the feasability of setting

up a dedicated waste management system in making hypothesis– Collection rate (from 5% to 25%)– Cost of waste management (from 200 €/t to 75 €/t)– Consumption of pressure treated wood

CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 34

Collection Hypothesis for the pressure treated wood waste (without poles and rail ties)

0

20 000

40 000

60 000

80 000

100 000

120 000

140 000

160 000

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

2019

2021

2023

2025

2027

2029

2031

2033

2035

2037

2039

year

t

CCA CCB CC C

CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 35

Hypothesis to set up a dedicated pressure treated wood waste management systeme

Collection Price treatmentt t total total producted fr imported /fr products /total €/t fr products total fr products total

2005 2 725 200 545 000 911 777 364 711 547 066 1,49 0,60 120 1,25% 0,50% 0,37% 0,15%2006 4 348 190 826 025 963 749 385 500 578 250 2,14 0,86 124 1,73% 0,69% 0,52% 0,21%2007 6 244 181 1 126 963 1 004 956 401 983 602 974 2,80 1,12 127 2,20% 0,88% 0,66% 0,26%2008 8 318 171 1 426 391 1 048 149 419 260 628 890 3,40 1,36 131 2,59% 1,04% 0,78% 0,31%2009 10 585 163 1 724 315 1 093 425 437 370 656 055 3,94 1,58 135 2,92% 1,17% 0,88% 0,35%2010 13 058 155 2 020 741 1 137 787 455 115 682 672 4,44 1,78 139 3,19% 1,28% 0,96% 0,38%2011 15 751 147 2 315 673 1 091 880 436 752 655 128 5,30 2,12 143 3,70% 1,48% 1,11% 0,44%2012 18 731 140 2 616 102 1 092 906 437 163 655 744 5,98 2,39 148 4,05% 1,62% 1,22% 0,49%2013 21 970 133 2 915 014 1 093 963 437 585 656 378 6,66 2,66 152 4,38% 1,75% 1,31% 0,53%2014 25 485 126 3 212 415 1 095 052 438 021 657 031 7,33 2,93 157 4,68% 1,87% 1,41% 0,56%2015 28 353 120 3 395 155 1 096 173 438 469 657 704 7,74 3,10 161 4,80% 1,92% 1,44% 0,58%2016 31 596 114 3 594 405 1 097 328 438 931 658 397 8,19 3,28 166 4,93% 1,97% 1,48% 0,59%2017 35 447 108 3 830 815 1 098 517 439 407 659 110 8,72 3,49 171 5,10% 2,04% 1,53% 0,61%2018 39 111 103 4 015 473 1 099 743 439 897 659 846 9,13 3,65 176 5,18% 2,07% 1,55% 0,62%2019 43 137 98 4 207 357 1 101 005 440 402 660 603 9,55 3,82 182 5,26% 2,11% 1,58% 0,63%2020 47 590 93 4 409 635 1 102 304 440 922 661 383 10,00 4,00 187 5,35% 2,14% 1,60% 0,64%2021 52 522 88 4 623 256 1 102 304 440 922 661 383 10,49 4,19 193 5,45% 2,18% 1,63% 0,65%2022 55 541 84 4 644 535 1 102 304 440 922 661 383 10,53 4,21 198 5,31% 2,12% 1,59% 0,64%2023 58 730 79 4 665 678 1 102 304 440 922 661 383 10,58 4,23 204 5,18% 2,07% 1,55% 0,62%

add cost (% price of product)Cost add cost (€/t)French consumption add cost (% /price treatment)year

Tax only on french production, added cost from 0.4 to 1.5 %

Tax on total consumption, added cost from 0.1 to 0.6 %

CC – TAG Meeting – August 18, 2005 36

In conclusion• Development needs

– Characterisation tools to identify the contaminants to allow treated wood waste sorting : fast, cheap, high sensibility

– Simple thermal treatment equipments for non-hazardous treated wood waste (with no harmful emissions and with a regional distribution), allowing an economically acceptable wood waste management

– To develop economically acceptable specific treatments for hazardous wood waste

• Future projects– To experiment on the field new technologies to identify

As, Cr and C– To set up a local operation with central waste facilities

and C&D waste facilities to test the collection