Survey of wastes spread on land

See our publications catalogue at:http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/pubs/home.htm

European Commission

14K

H-40-01-424-E

N-N

OFFICE FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONSOF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

L-2985 Luxembourg

ISBN 92-894-1732-3

9 789289 41 7327

Survey of wastes spreadon land

A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet.It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu.int).

Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2001

ISBN 92-894-1732-3

© European Communities, 2001Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION-DIRECTORATE-GENERALFOR ENVIRONMENT

SURVEY OF WASTES SPREAD ON LAND - FINALREPORT

STUDY CONTRACT B4-3040/99/110194/MAR/E3

WRc Ref: CO 4953-2JULY 2001

SURVEY OF WASTES SPREAD ON LAND - FINAL REPORT

STUDY CONTRACT B4-3040/99/110194/MAR/E3

Report No.: CO 4953-2

July 2001

Authors:

WRc - A. Gendebien, R. Ferguson, J. Brink, H. Horth, M. Sullivan and R. Davis.

SEDE - H. Brunet, F. Dalimier, B. Landrea, D Krack and J. Perot

REI - C. Orsi

Contract Manager: A.H. Gendebien

Contract No.: 11768-1

RESTRICTION: This report has the following limited distribution:

External: At the direction of DG Environment

Internal: Authors and Study Team Members

Any enquiries relating to this report should be referred to the authors at the followingaddress:

WRc Medmenham, Henley Road, Medmenham, Marlow, Bucks, SL7 2HD., UK.Telephone: (01491) 571531

The contents of this document are subject to copyright and all rights are reserved. No part ofthis document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form orby any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the priorwritten consent of the copyright owner.

This document has been produced by WRc plc.

CONTENTS

SUMMARY 1

1. INTRODUCTION 9

2. OBJECTIVES 11

2.1 Objectives 112.2 Sources of Information and contacts 11

3. QUANTITY OF WASTE RECYCLED TO LAND AND OUTLET 13

3.1 Data collection and estimation 133.2 Outlets and treatment 323.3 Recording and reporting systems 33

4. PROPERTIES OF WASTES RELEVANT TO AGRICULTURAL BENEFITAND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 35

4.1 Farm Animal wastes 354.2 Blood and gut contents from abattoirs 454.3 Waste from food and drinks preparation 524.4 Pulp And Paper Industry Sludge 594.5 Tannery sludge 634.6 Textile waste 664.7 Decarbonation Sludge 714.8 Sludge from the production of drinking water 744.9 Dredgings from Waterways 774.10 Waste lime from cement manufacture or gas processing 804.11 Waste Gypsum 834.12 Slag from the Steel Industry 864.13 Waste wood, bark and other plant materials 884.14 Waste from chemical and pharmaceutical manufacture 91

5. LEGISLATION AND OTHER CONTROLS, ENVIRONMENTAL ANDECONOMIC FACTORS 97

5.1 Legislation 975.2 Environmental factors 985.3 Economic factors 995.4 Social factors 100

6. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONTROLS AT COMMUNITY LEVEL 103

6.1 Definitions 1036.2 Registering a waste for landspreading 1046.3 Permit for a landspreading operation 1056.4 Database of information 107

REFERENCES 109

APPENDICES

To be submitted separately

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Estimates of quantities of farm animal and industrial wastes recycledto land as reported by the fifteen Member States 14

Table 3.1a Estimates of quantities of waste produced from main industrial sectorsrelying on the agricultural oulet in fifteen Member States(x106 tonnes on a fresh weight basis) 16

Table 3.1b Estimates of waste quantities recycled to land from main industrial sectors infifteen Member States (x106 tonnes on a fresh weight basis) 17

Table 3.2 Coefficient of waste generated per animal category 18

Table 3.3 Number of farm animals (x103) per category and per country 19

Table 3.4 Estimates of annual quantities of animal waste generated annually inthe fifteen Member countries 20

Table 3.5 Estimates of paper sludge produced in the fifteen Member countries 21

Table 3.6 Estimates of sludge generated from the sugar beet processingindustry in Europe 23

Table 3.7 Production of olives and olive oil in Europe (FAOSTAT 1998) 24

Table 3.8 Coefficient for waste arisings from olive oil processing (Stölting, perscomm 2000) 24

Table 3.9 Estimates of waste generated from olive oil processing in Europe 25

Table 3.10 Estimates of waste generated from other fruit and vegetableprocessing sectors in Europe 26

Table 3.11 Estimates of stomach content recycled to land from abattoirs inEurope 27

Table 3.12 Estimates of waste arising from other food sectors in Europe (x106

tonnes) (as fresh weight) 28

Table 3.13 Estimates of sludge generated from leather processing sectors inEurope 29

Table 3.14 Estimates of sludge generated from textile processing sectors inEurope* 31

Table 3.15 Estimates for organic waste arising from other sectors in Europe(x106 tonnes as fresh weight) * 31

Table 3.16 Estimates of mineral wastes recycled to land in Europe (x106 tonnesas fresh weight) 32

Table 4.1 Typical nutrient content of farm yard manure in Europe (Hall 1999) 35

Table 4.2 Comparison of EUROSTAT data on N in manure for livestock in ECMember States (EC 1999) 36

Table 4.3 Typical composition of cattle manure 37

Table 4.4 Typical composition of cattle slurry 38

Table 4.5 Typical composition of pig manure 39

Table 4.6 Typical composition of pig slurry 40

Table 4.7 Typical composition of poultry manure 41

Table 4.8 Abattoir waste – blood 46

Table 4.9 Abattoir waste – stomach contents 47

Table 4.10 Abattoir waste – sludge 48

Table 4.11 Average composition of effluent from the food and drink industry 52

Table 4.12 Average composition of food and drink industry sludge 53

Table 4.13 Average composition of earth laden suspensions in sugar beetprocessing industry 54

Table 4.14 Average composition of mixed pulp and paper industry sludge 59

Table 4.15 Tannery sludge 63

Table 4.16 Textile processing sludge 66

Table 4.17 Wool scourers waste 67

Table 4.18 Quality data for decarbonabiton sludge 71

Table 4.19 Dredgings from waterways 77

Table 4.20 Waste Lime 80

Table 4.21 Waste gypsum 83

Table 4.22 Slag from the steel industry 86

Table 4.23 Waste wood, bark and other plant materials 88

Table 4.24 Pharmaceutical waste 91

Table 4.25 Waste ammonia 92

Table 4.26 Waste ammonium sulphate 93

Table 4.27 Waste from gelatine production 94

EUROPEAN COMMISSION - DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR ENVIRONMENT

WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

1

SUMMARY

Background

A wide range of wastes and by-products of industrial processes is being spread on the land inagriculture, forestry and land reclamation operations. Some materials generated fromindustrial processes are considered, by the producers at least, to be by-products rather thanwastes so that they can be recycled to land as soil improvers and fertilisers with minimumrestriction. Various control regimes apply to the practice of landspreading but most share theunderlying assumption that it is for the benefit of the soil and it is a low cost disposal option. Itis expected that landspreading will increase following the implementation of Community andNational regulations which restrict disposal of organic-rich materials in landfills and whichrequire treatment of organic-rich industrial effluent from different branches of the food anddrink and other sectors.

Waste categories included in the survey were as follows (sewage sludge and compost wereoutside the remit of the study):

• animal manures;

• waste from food and drinks preparation (sugar beet processing, meat and fishprocessing, dairies, vegetable processing, breweries, etc);

• blood and gut contents from abattoir;

• waste lime from cement manufacture or gas processing;

• waste from basic organic chemical and pharmaceutical companies;

• waste wood, bark and other plant material;

• paper waste sludge, waste paper and de-inked paper pulp;

• sludge from potable water production;

• decarbonatation sludge from industries;

• dredgings;

• textile waste;

• waste from the leather and tannery industry; and

• slag from steel industry

Objectives

The survey of wastes spread on land was to cover the fifteen Member States of the EU inorder to:

a) Provide a quantitative and, where this was not possible, a qualitative estimate of theamounts of industrial wastes that are currently being spread on land either as a recoveryor as a disposal operation. Definitions of waste, recovery and disposal are given in theWaste Framework Directive 75/442/EEC as amended (CEC 1991).


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

2

b) Gather relevant information in the forms of studies, articles and statistics on the possibleenvironmental drawbacks of the spreading of these wastes. Attention should be given toheavy metals, organic compounds and pathogens.

c) Make a survey of national applicable legislation and regulations, and evaluate whetherthey are correctly enforced and sufficient for satisfying the requirements of Article 4 of theWaste Framework Directive 75/442/EEC as amended (CEC 1991).

d) Suggest what kind of actions are needed at Community level in order to ensure a highlevel of protection of the environment.

Quantities of wastes spread on the land in the EU

More than 90% of the waste spread on land is farm waste and predominantly animal manure.Of the remainder, the most important are food production wastes, dredgings from waterwaysand paper waste sludge. Leaving aside farm wastes, it would require access to only about 1%of agricultural land in the EU to landspread the industrial wastes to the current extent.

One reason for discrepancies in the level of information available stems from the variableextent of regulation and controls. Not all countries have imposed strict reporting requirementson industries to notify the relevant authorities regularly of the volumes of waste being recycledto land. The monitoring of the accuracy of the returns is also different between countries andsometimes regions. Only Denmark seems to have a centralised collection of information onwaste recycled to land, with annual reports on both industrial and farm wastes. Landspreadingis accepted practice in some Member States but not in others.

As regards reporting, there is an onus on Member States under Article 5 of Directive91/692/EEC (CEC 1991), on standardising and rationalising reports on the implementation ofcertain Directives relating to the environment, to supply information to the Commission aboutimplementation of the Waste Framework Directive 75/442/EEC as amended (CEC 1991).There is a need for this information to obtain firm data about the extent of landspreading ofwastes in the EU.

Properties of wastes

A summary guide is presented to each of the main categories of waste and includes analyticalinformation and suggestions for pretreatment and for good practice for use on the land. Not allcategories of waste could be included because of different classification schemes betweenMember States and a lack of information for some wastes.

Legislation

The Waste Framework Directive (75/442/EEC as amended 91/156/EEC)) sets out theprinciples of the necessary controls where waste materials are to be recycled to the land butthere is a case for introducing more specific controls to ensure a high level of environmentalprotection.

Competent authorities in several Member States (Denmark, France, Germany, UK forexample) have already taken initiatives to develop effective regulation by building on theWaste Framework Directive.

More specific controls for landspreading of wastes could be compiled from the EuropeanWaste Catalogue (classification) and from Directives 86/278/EEC on landspreading of sewage


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

3

sludge and 91/676/EEC on protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates fromagricultural sources. These two Directives, and extended guidance for their implementationwhich is available in most Member States, contain much of relevance to the landspreading ofwastes.

Also relevant is the EC initiative on biodegradable waste, now at the discussion stage, whichis intended to help meet the targets of the Landfill Directive 1999/31/EC to progressivelyreduce the quantities of biodegradable waste disposed of to landfill.

The current exclusion from direct regulation of farm animal waste should be reconsideredbearing in mind the large quantity recycled to land in the EU and its polluting potential(nutrients, pathogens, oxygen demand and chemicals).

Environmental factors

The key tenet in support of landspreading of wastes is that it recycles nutrients and organicmatter to the land which would otherwise be lost in disposal to landfill or thermal destruction.In landfill, organic waste is potentially polluting because it causes leachate production andrelease of the greenhouse gas, methane. A residual ash or char is left behind from mostthermal processes which still needs to be disposed of and carbon dioxide is lost to theatmosphere. There is potential for energy recovery from thermal processes and landfill(through methane collection). Provided that benefit to agriculture (or ecological improvement)can be demonstrated, landspreading of wastes is considered preferable to thermal destructionor landfilling in the ranking of options in the Waste Framework Directive. The Directive on thelandfill of waste 1999/31/EC details requirements for Member States to set up a nationalstrategy for the implementation of the reduction of biodegradable waste going to landfills and,together with the landfill tax in some Member States, this will encourage the recycling of morewaste to land.

Waste producers using the landspreading outlet must recognise that it is waste recovery notwaste disposal. They should be prepared to improve the management of wastes forlandspreading by investment as appropriate in storage at the point of production, dewateringand other treatment, monitoring and analysis, and field trials to quantify the agricultural benefitof their wastes.

Provided its potential disadvantages can be suitably controlled, landspreading shouldcompare favourably with the other waste management options. Such a comparison would becomplicated by the variability of activities but could be demonstrated by environmental impactassessment or life cycle analysis of operations selected as being either generallyrepresentative, or evaluation of options for the major wastes – farm animal waste, paperwaste, and food waste.

Economic factors

Two of the benefits of landspreading of waste are that it is often an economic route for thewaste producer compared with the other options available, and for the farmer it usuallyrepresents a free or competitively-priced source of nutrients and/or soil conditioner. Obviouslymany factors will influence the economics of particular operations, but a broad estimate ismade as follows for the cost of disposal of 1 tonne of waste or 1m3 of effluent using datafrom France.

Landspreading = 15 - 25 Euro for solid waste, or 1 – 4 Euro for effluent


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

4

Landfill = 25 - 55 Euro including a landfill tax of 9 Euro

Incineration = 45 - 90 Euro

Social factors

The development of landspreading depends partly on public acceptance of the concept and oflandspreading operations at the local level. Acceptance of the concept requires a publicrelations exercise to inform and educate about the need for recycling of wastes to land asopposed to dumping in landfill or incineration. This can be achieved through the media and byexhibitions and ‘open days’ at operational sites. The promotion must be supported bydemonstration that all environmental aspects of landspreading are understood and controlledso that the practice is safe and of environmental and agricultural benefit.

Landspreading depends on the willingness of farmers to accept waste for recycling on theirland and this willingness may be influenced by various outside influences. An important factoris the attitude of the buyers of farm produce to the fact that waste has been recycled on theland. Any suggestion of a public acceptance problem with food made from crops grown onwaste-treated land might cause the buyer to compel the farmer to stop the practice.

Public acceptance at the local level is important. Neighbourhood concerns can be triggered byodour, visual and traffic nuisance all of which must be avoided both at the plants where thewaste is produced and treated, and at the farms where it is spread. This will require makingsure the waste is treated as far as possible to remove odour, planning lorry routes to the farmto avoid nuisance, and ploughing in waste soon after spreading on the land or else applyingthe waste by subsurface soil injection.

Recommendations for controls at EU level

Recommendations are made for an outline scheme for cost-effective controls onlandspreading intended to provide across the EU a ‘level playing field’ for stakeholders,reliable information for regulators and a high level of environmental protection wherelandspreading of wastes is practised. The recommendations include a strong element of selfregulation; the waste producer or their agent has to provide most of the information required inthe proposed scheme.

Definitions

The terms benefit to agriculture and ecological improvement from the Waste FrameworkDirective must be fulfilled if a waste is to be permitted for spreading on the land and they needfurther definition to clarify what has to be achieved. For example, definitions suggested in theUK (Environment Agency UK 1998) are as follows:

Agricultural benefit will be achieved when the application of a waste to land improves soilconditions for crop growth whilst ensuring the protection of environmental quality in thebroadest sense as required by Article 4 of the Waste Framework Directive 75/442/EEC asamended (CEC 1991).

Ecological improvement will be achieved by the maintenance of habitats and their biodiversitywhere these would otherwise deteriorate, the provision of new habitats for wildlife and thedevelopment or restoration of existing habitats to give greater biodiversity and sustainability.


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

5

Usually, the case for landspreading a waste will be determined by demonstrating benefit toagriculture. The ecological improvement criterion is likely to be confined to situations where itis proposed to use wastes in land reclamation or similar operations.

Classification

The categories of wastes likely to be suitable for landspreading. The survey shows that thereis some confusion about definitions of the wastes suitable for landspreading. Suitable wastesneed to be identified, defined and, if appropriate, grouped into broad categories to make for aworkable classification for use across the EU. Only in this way will it be possible to controllandspreading effectively since the classification is fundamental to collect coherent informationand make sensible comparisons. This process has already begun with the useful waste andwaste treatment definitions in the EC Working Document (2nd draft) on the BiologicalTreatment of Biowaste.

In developing a practical scheme for operational purposes, a further banding of materials intobroad groups maybe helpful. All materials would be subject to overall generic controls andthere would be further specific controls for each group according to their properties. The maingroups might be:

Class 1 Farm residues recycled on the farm of production e.g. manure from animals grazingin situ.

Class 2 Benign wastes containing negligible levels of contaminants e.g. green waste,biological sludge from food waste treatment.

Class 3 Wastes which may contain contaminants (pathogens, heavy metals and otherpotentially toxic elements, organic contaminants) e.g. dredgings from waterways,tannery waste, paper waste.

Registering a waste for landspreading

The competent authority in each Member State would use the scheme above to classifyparticular wastes proposed for landspreading on receipt of a standard submission from thewaste producer or their agent. Progressively detailed information would be required accordingto the class of waste along the following lines:

Class 1 Source of waste (address of place of production or treatment centre, and quantity ofwaste arising tonne/annum)

Extent of treatment e.g. storage for 3 months at ambient temperature.

Class 2 As for Class 1 plus

Basis for benefit to agriculture e.g. content of nitrogen.

Content of plant nutrients and lime (nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium,magnesium, sulphur, trace elements), organic matter, dry solids, pH value.

Evidence that the waste contains only negligible concentrations of contaminants.

Class 3. As for Class 1 plus


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

6

Basis for benefit to agriculture.

Content of plant nutrients etc. as for Class 2.

Content of contaminants (pathogens – most probable numbers; concentrations ofheavy metals, other potentially toxic elements and organic contaminants).

Evidence that the waste is free of contaminants other than those specified.

Permit for a landspreading operation

How the landspreading operation is managed on the farm is very important if benefit toagriculture is to be achieved and environmental problems are to be avoided.

Once the waste has been designated as suitable for landspreading, the waste producer ortheir agent can apply to the competent authority for a permit for a proposed landspreadingoperation.

A permitting system may be justifiable to ensure a high level of environmental protection.There is no reason why the permit should be confined to a single operation. It might coverseveral wastes and farms and a number or spreading operations provided that the competentauthority is satisfied that the following criteria are met:

• The waste(s) have been designated as suitable for landspreading

• Article 4 of the Waste Framework Directive 75/442/EC as amended

• Directive 91/676/ EEC on nitrates

• Directive 86/278/EEC on sewage sludge used on land for Class 3 wastes

• The operation will be compatible with the farm waste/fertiliser plan

• The activity will be undertaken by competent operator(s)

• A site risk assessment has been carried out by properly qualified personnel and necessaryprecautions to ensure a high level of environmental protection will be acted upon

• A record of each spreading operation will be kept (type of waste, quantity of waste applied,location of farm and field, date of spreading) including the results of monitoring andanalysis, and supplied to the competent authority

It will be easier to demonstrate compliance with these criteria for a benign waste than a Class3 waste. The competent authority would keep a register of permits issued and the record ofeach landspreading operation.

The competent authority would make the necessary site visits and spotchecks to confirm thatlandspreading operations were in compliance with the permit conditions and the recordswould indicate where any pollution incident could be linked with a landspreading operation.

Landspreading licences for operators


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

7

A further consideration which might streamline the registering of wastes and permitting oflandspreading operations would be to issue landspreading licences to operators. A licensedoperator would be familiar with the control requirements for landspreading and theiradministration and would be known to the competent authority, all of which should streamlinethe authorisation process. In order to obtain a licence, an operator would make a submissionincluding the capabilities of personnel, track record in landspreading of wastes including anypollution offences, access to properly qualified advice, transport and spreading equipmentavailable, environmental policy, quality assurance procedures and liability insurance. Thecompetent authority would either issue a landspreading licence for a designated period orindicate why it could not do so. The competent authority would keep a register of operatorslicenced for landspreading.

Database of information

As a result of this proposed scheme, the competent regulatory authority in each Member Statecould build up from its regional offices a national database comprising the registers ofdesignated wastes and landspreading permits from which all relevant information aboutlandspreading of wastes could be derived. Summary data could be reported to theCommission as required to present a synopsis of landspreading of wastes across the EU.


WRc Ref: CO 495July 2001

3-2/11768-1 8


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

9

1. INTRODUCTION

In the context of the European Community Waste Management Policy (Commission of the EC1996), the Directorate-General Environment has commissioned WRc, in collaboration withSEDE France and REI Italy, to undertake a survey on industrial wastes spread on land whichcovers the fifteen Member States of the European Union. This is the final report for the studywhich began in January 2000.

There are currently no specific regulatory controls at the Community level on wastes appliedto land with the exception of sewage sludge. However, in Annex IIB of the Waste FrameworkDirective 75/442/EEC as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC (CEC 1991), landspreadingoperations of wastes other than animal carcasses and animal manures are considered asrecovery operations as long as they are carried in accordance with Article 4, i.e. withoutendangering human health and the environment. The Directive specifies that companiesundertaking such recovery operations can be exempted from a permit requirement if thecompetent authorities have adopted specific rules for these exemptions.

A wide range of wastes and by-products of industrial processes are being spread on the landin agriculture, forestry and land reclamation operations. Some materials generated fromindustrial processes are considered, by the producers at least, to be by-products rather thanwastes so that they can be recycled to land as soil improvers and fertilisers with minimumrestriction. Various control regimes apply to the practice of landspreading but most share theunderlying assumption that it is for the benefit of the soil and it is a low cost disposal option. Itis expected that landspreading will increase following the implementation of Community andNational regulations which restrict disposal of organic-rich materials in landfills and whichrequire treatment of organic-rich industrial effluent from different branches of the food anddrink and other sectors.

If carried out satisfactorily, landspreading of wastes can be a valuable and cost-effectiverecycling of nutrients and organic matter to soil. However, landspreading of wastes needs tobe carried out in a manner that protects human health and the environment and that ensuressustainable development.

This study aims were: To prepare the first review of current practices for landspreading oforganic wastes (excluding sewage sludge and compost) across the European Union (EU); toprovide a better understanding of the associated risks; and to suggest actions which wouldhelp to ensure a high level of environmental protection from landspreading operations.

Waste categories included in the survey were as follows:

• animal manures;

• waste from food and drinks preparation (sugar beet processing, meat and fishprocessing, dairies, vegetable processing, breweries, etc);

• blood and gut contents from abattoir;

• waste lime from cement manufacture or gas processing;

• waste from basic organic chemical and pharmaceutical companies;

• waste wood, bark and other plant material;


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

10

• paper waste sludge, waste paper and de-inked paper pulp;

• sludge from drinking water production;

• decarbonatation sludge from industries;

• dredgings;

• textile waste;

• waste from the leather and tannery industry; and

• slag from steel industry.

The main part of the report deals with landspreading on a generalised basis drawing oninformation from individual countries as appropriate. Landspreading practice in each MemberState is summarised in the Appendices to the report. There were differences betweenMember States according to the extent of landspreading and the availability of informationabout the practice.


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

11

2. OBJECTIVES

2.1 Objectives

The survey of wastes spread on land was to cover the fifteen Member States of the EU inorder to:

a) Provide a quantitative and, where this was not possible, a qualitative estimate of theamounts of industrial wastes that are currently being spread on land either as a recoveryor as a disposal operation. Definitions of waste, recovery and disposal are given in WasteFramework Directive 75/442/EEC as amended (CEC 1991).

b) Gather relevant information in the forms of studies, articles and statistics on the possibleenvironmental drawbacks of the spreading of these wastes. Attention should be given toheavy metals, organic compounds and pathogens.

c) Make a survey of national applicable legislation and regulations, and evaluate whetherthey are correctly enforced and sufficient for satisfying the requirements of Article 4 ofDirective 75/442/EEC as amended (CEC 1991).

d) Suggest what kind of actions are needed at Community level in order to ensure a highlevel of protection of the environment.

2.2 Sources of Information and contacts

Whenever possible countries have been visited to ensure a high level of return, rather thanrelying on phone calls or mail. The information has been collected from a number of sourcesin addition to that available in the open literature and in-house. This is of importance tovalidate and cross-reference the data and ensure the reliability and comprehensiveness of theinformation. Requests for information were made by WRc and then dispatched by the relevantpartners to the following organisations:

a) Eurostat on statistics available on waste arisings from farming and industrial sectors;

b) Recycling Organic Solids in Agriculture (ROSA) Concerted Action. The ROSAConcerted Action aims to improve exchange and dissemination of information relating tothe utilisation of organic solid residues in agriculture. ROSA comprises four meetingsplanned over a period of two years. The final report was due at the end of April 2000;

c) RAMIRAN Network on Recycling of Agricultural, Municipal and Industrial Residues inAgriculture. This is an FAO network;

d) IPPC Steering Group (Integrated Pollution Prevention Control). The group is responsiblefor drafting IPPC guidance notes, Best Available Techniques Reference Documents(BREFS); and

e) European Trade Associations for the main industrial sectors of interest to our survey(i.e. Pulp and Paper and Food and Drink industries).


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

12

For each Member States, specific organisations were approached for collecting existing andpublically available information on wastes landspreading. A questionnaire was used to ensureconsistency and comparability of the results between the differents partners and countries(see Appendix A). A detailed list of contacts is given in each country report which should havecovered the following organisations:

a) Governmental organisations: Ministries/Departments of Agriculture, Environment andIndustry; Environmental Protection Agency, Waste Regulatory Bodies;

b) Trade associations: Industrial Federations/Associations, Agricultural Research Centre,Farmers Union, etc.; and

c) Main contractors of landspreading operations.


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

13

3. QUANTITY OF WASTE RECYCLED TO LAND AND OUTLET

3.1 Data collection and estimation

Data collection was undertaken by WRc plc (UK), SEDE (France and Belgium) and REI Spa(Italy). Generally, data was in short supply and differed widely across the Member States,both in terms of quality and quantity. The information available on quantities of waste spreadon land for the different Member States is summarised in Table 3.1. It can be seen that thetable contains some gaps in information. Where possible these gaps have been qualified toindicate where recycling of a type of waste takes place or not, even if there was no recordavailable. Further estimates of waste arisings and landspreading are given in Tables 3.1a and3.1b.

Where information on actual quantities of wastes spread on land were not available, estimateshave been provided instead. Estimates of this kind need reliable coefficients for waste arisingsestimated from production figures or raw material processed. This information was not alwaysobtainable. Also, it could not be assumed that the percentage of any particular waste spreadon land would be the same from country to country.

The exception to this is farm animal waste. Because of the volume of these wastes andinherent proximity to farmland, most slurry and manure are currently landspread. It is possibleto estimate the volume of manure produced based on the number of animals and a manurecoefficient, the method used is detailed in the Appendices.

However, attempts have been made below to give best estimates of the total annualquantities of other wastes recycled to land for the sectors traditionally relying on theagricultural outlet. Some caution must be exercised when using or quoting these figures asthese have been built up from gross hypothesis on often incomplete sets of data onproduction figures and/or from waste coefficient arising not validated by the industry. Thesefigures are just meant to give an idea of the scale of the issue for industrial compared with theother wastes recycled to land.

European Commission-Directorate-General for Environment

WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

14

Table 3.1 Estimates of quantities of farm animal and industrial wastes recycled to land as reported by the fifteen MemberStates (x 103 tonnes ds per annum)

Waste Origin FarmAnimals

Paperproduction

Food anddrink

preparation1

Textile Leather andtanneryindustry

Biologicalprocesses2

Chemicalindustry3

Drinkingwater

production

Clay andmineral

exploitation,cement

manufactureenergy

production

Dredgings Iron andsteel industry

Other

Austria

��

4

��

Belgium (19 900) 50 220 0.2 0.3 185 6 >20

Denmark (28 500)

��

4 706 0.5 1187 128

Finland (18 200)

�� >1009 2010 10011

France (249 700) 740 4140 35 0.7 180 75 20012

Germany (221 700) (300)D1 (700) (940) (450) 6014

Greece

Ireland 3.9 100 3 0.4 5015

Italy (118 500) (1000)16 (2300)16 (170)16 (90)16 (90)16 (3300)

Luxembourg 17

Netherlands (76 200)

Portugal

Spain (90 000)

Sweden (22 800)

�� (2600)

UK (90 700) (400) (6600) (3.5) (9) (8)18 (3)19

��

��

(21)20

(4)21(15)22


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

15

KEY:

Waste quantity in tonnes x 1000 dry solids per annum( ) Wet/fresh weight1 Includes vegetable and fruit processing, sugar beet processing, meat and fish processing, abattoirs, soft drinks and breweries2 biological sludge from fermentation processes in pharmaceutical industry and other chemical industries3 inorganic waste from chemical industry4 Food solid waste is mainly converted into compost and liquid effluents are treated in municipal treatment works5 waste from basic organic chemical industry (production of gelatine)6 mainly from potato flour production and lime sludge from sugar beet processing7 mainly from pharmaceutical and fertiliser industry8 un specified waste9 includes only lime sludge from sugar beet processing10 Quarry waste11 unspecified waste12 Not for the whole country – data only for one region13 Only from one company, no national total available. Include iron salts, ammonium sulphate and waste lime14 decarbonatation sludge from water treatment for industrial usage15 Spent mushroom compost16 landspreading in agriculture and land reclamation as well as recycling by composting and fertiliser production17 Effluent from food and drink industry are discharged to sewer and treated in municipal treatment plant. Sewage sludge is mainly disposed of to landfill while a

small proportion is recycled to agriculture18 for Scotland only19 Liquid ammonia, for Scotland only20 mineral waste21 biological sludge22 Rocks and soil

Lack of information to confirm usage, partial information or unconfirmed figures��

�� Experimental or small quantities only but no figures available

Not permitted or not practised


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

16

Table 3.1a Estimates1 of quantities of waste produced from main industrial sectorsrelying on the agricultural outlet in fifteen Member States (x106 tonnes on a freshweight basis)

Paperproduc-tion2

Sugarbeatproces-sing3

Olive oilproduc-tion4

Otherfruitandveget-ableproces-sing

Otherfoodanddrinksec-tors5

Leatherproduc-tion

Textileproduc-tion

Mineralwaste6

Othersectors7

Austria 0.6 0.3 0 0.54 0.0001Belgium 0.14 0.4 0 1.2 0.0007Denmark 0.04 0.3 0 2.8 NDGermany 2.5 0 0 3 0.013Greece 0.1 0 1.4 1 0.0003Spain ND 9 2.8 3 0.27Finland 0.9 0.3 0 3 0.0004France 1.34 4 ND 3 0.0007Ireland 0.005 0 0 1 0.00001Italy 2 0.3 1.4 3.3 0.58Luxembourg 0 4 0 0.5 0Netherlands 0.5 0.3 0 3 0.0006Portugal 0.5 0 0.2 1 0.005Sweden 1.47 0.12 0 0.9 0.0003United Kingdom 0.71 9 0 3 0.03Total 10 25 7 30 40 0.9 5 300 0.3Notes:1 Please refer to text for hypotheses made to compile this table2 Total of paper sludge and de-inking sludge3 Total of lagoon sludge and lime sludge4 Wastewater only5 Includes dairies, breweries/distilleries, abattoirs6 Includes residual lime from energy production, clay and mineral exploitation, metal production

and processing, drinking water supply and industrial decarhonation sludge and dredging spoil7 Includes pharmaceutical industries, wood processing


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

17

Table 3.1b Estimates1 of waste quantities recycled to land from main industrialsectors in fifteen Member States (x106 tonnes on a fresh weight basis)

Paperproduc-tion

Sugarbeatproces-sing

Olive oilproduc-tion

Otherfruitandveget-ableproces-sing

Otherfoodanddrinksectors

Leatherproduc-tion

Tex-tileproduc-tion

Mineralwaste

Othersector

Austria 0 0.1 0 0.03 0Belgium 0.1 0.4 0 0.06 0.0016Denmark 0 0.1 0 2.1 0.0028Germany 0 1.6 0 0.15 0Greece 0.01 0 0.6 0.05 0.00009Spain 0.1 0 1 0.15 0.08Finland 0 0.1 0 0.15 0France 0.8 2 ND 0.15 0.001Ireland 0 0.1 0 0.1 0Italy 1 1.1 0.6 0.2 0.16Luxembourg 0 0 0 0.02 0Netherlands 0 0.1 0 0.15 0Portugal 0.05 0 0.1 0.05 0.0015Sweden <0.07 0.12 0 0.05 0United Kingdom 0.3 2 0 0.15 0.003Total 2 8 3 3 1 0.25 0.1 15 4Notes:1 Please refer to text for hypotheses made to compile this table

3.1.1 Farm animal production

In the last 50 years, intensive livestock production has increased significantly across Europeto produce a cheap and balanced supply of food. The livestock rearing units have increased insize and have been concentrating in a specific regions. This has resulted in large increases inthe quantities of farm yard manure and slurry produced and lead to their inadequatemanagement. The intensive livestock units have separated themselves from the land wherethe food source is produced and where the manure and slurries could be recycled.

Farm characteristics and animal densities vary widely across Europe with generally lessintensive agriculture and thus lower density in the Southern European countries and muchhigher density in the Northern countries. For pigs, for example, the density in Northern Europeis about ten times greater than that in the Southern countries.

Animal farm wastes are usually not treated before being recycled to land except for a smallpercentage (about 5%) in countries such as Denmark and Sweden which is anaerobicallydigested or composted in central plants before being recycled to land.

Volumes of waste generated by farm animals kept indoors can be estimated by multiplying thenumber of animals by a coefficient of waste generated depending on types of animals,function, sex and age. For example, coefficients which can be used for such calculations arepresented in Table 3.2. The number of animals according to categories for each country wereextracted from the latest entries in Eurostat database (Eurostat 2000) or from other national


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

18

sources and are reported in Table 3.3 below. The best estimates of quantity of animal wastegenerated per country is presented in Table 3.4.

Table 3.2 Coefficient of waste generated per animal category

Animal category Quantity (l/week)

CattleLess than 1 year 80Between 1 – 2 years 140More than 2 years: Male/heifer 250 Dairy cow 315 Other cow 280PigsLess than 20 kg 15Fattening pigs more than 20 kg 30Breeding pigs 60Covered sows 100PoultryBroiler 0.2Laying hens 1.1


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

19

Table 3.3 Number of farm animals (x103) per category and per country

Animal category AT B DE DK ES FI FR GR IE IT LU NL PT SE UK

Cattle 2,153 3,085 14,657 1,976 6,200 1,068 20,196 590 7,099 7,074 202 4,097 1,403 1,679 11,281

Less than 1 year 631 978 4,663 669 2,131 370 5,269 156 1,825 2,185 54 1469 386 527 3,030

Between 1 – 2 years 488 628 3,420 372 689 264 3,891 92 1,760 1,583 47 794 231 423 2,836

More than 2 years:

Male/heifer 159 264 1,079 118 3,383 31 2,549 37 939 92 9 177 351 124 1,071

Dairy cow 698 607 4,709 681 1236 374 4,419 168 1,392 3,214 43 1570 325 447 2,438

Other cow 177 607 786 136 1812 29 4,068 137 1,183 49 87 158 1,906

Pigs 3,512 7,665 25,728 11,695 22,292 1,517 15,848 906 1,786 8,142 79 13,118 2,350 2,008 6,523

Less than 20 kg 971 2,208 6,720 3,747 6533 442 3,758 230 493 1,473 29 5102 682 566 1,720

Fattening pigs more than20 kg

2173 4,719 16,381 6703 13094 884 10,554 549 1101 5,933 42 6638 1321 1146 4,064

Breeding pigs 133 210 848 462 943 60 481 56 4.3 200 8 519 147 154 238

Covered sows 235 566 1779 783 1554 131 1,055 71 188 536 >1 859 200 142 501

Poultry 5580 39,313 50061 3680 591,135 3390 60325 12,698 55,696 72 42,461 7,097 5648 38722

Broiler 24,201 544,428 0.9

Laying hens 5,580 12,164 50,061 3680 46707 3,390 60,325 62 42,461 7,097 5,648 38,722

Sheep/goat 419 126 2,383 108 26,829 102 10,629 14,583 5,637 12,260 8 1465 4,241 442 31,157

Horse 652 83 183


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

20

Table 3.4 Estimates of annual quantities of animal waste generated annually in thefifteen Member countries

Country Quantity (X 106 tonnes per annum)

Fresh weight Dry solids

Austria 30 4*Belgium 44 7*Denmark 28.5 4Germany 222 28.6Greece 40.5 6*Spain 190 28*Finland 18 3*France 250 37*Ireland 26 3.9*Italy 118.5 25Luxembourg 2 0.3*Netherlands 76 11*Portugal 25 4*Sweden 23 2.8United Kingdom 91 15.7Total ~1,200 ~180* Estimating a 15% DS

3.1.2 Pulp and paper

The paper industry includes two types of manufacturing process:

• Pulp production (chemical or mechanical); and

• Paper (newsprint, graphics, tissue, packaging papers) and cardboard production usingvirgin fibre and/or recycled fibre.

Both processes are large consumers of water. Most plants have primary treatment of effluentsand in some cases secondary treatment which generate sludge. When virgin wood fibre isused to produce paper, this produces liquid effluent and sludge mainly containing lignin andcellulose. The process of reusing fibre from recycled paper produces larger amounts ofsludge. De-inking and bleaching is required and sludge will contain colour, chemical andbleaching residues which might impair further re-use of sludge on land. The wastewater andtherefore the characteristics of the sludge produced are dependent on the productionprocesses used in paper manufacturing.

In the UK, it has been reported that virgin fibre generates 65% on wet weight basis of sludgewhile recycled fibre generates 80% sludge. However, calculation seems to indicate that590 kg of paper sludge are generated per tonne of virgin fibre processed and 340 kg of sludgeper tonne of recycled fibre. Existing information supplied by the National Paper Federations tothe European Federation CEPi was complemented with information on total quantities of pulpprocessed per country extracted from Eurostat database, Europrom. Total quantities of papersludge have been estimated (Table 3.5) to amount to around 10 million tonnes fresh weight


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

21

basis. The recycling rates have been estimated to vary between 0 to 10% depending oncountry.

The paper industry also generates other waste such as ash from the burning of bark andsludge on site. It is estimated that in France up to 34% of ashes are recycled to agriculture.

Table 3.5 Estimates of paper sludge produced in the fifteen Member countries

Country Quantity of Pulpprocessed

( x106 tonnes freshweight)*

Quantity of sludge(x106 tonnes fresh weight)**

Recycling to land

Virginfibre

Recycled

fibre

Total Papersludge

De-inkingsludge

Total (%) (x106

tonnesfresh

weight)

Austria 0.6(0.3)

0% 0

Belgium (0.06) (0.01) 0.14@

(0.07)88%B1 (0.05)

Denmark 0.09 0.04# 0% 0Germany 5 2.5# 0% 0Greece 0.2 0.1# 10% 0.01Spain 1.7 15%ES1 0.1Finland 0.9@

(0.45)<1% 0

FranceF1 1.34(0.74)

62% 0.8(0.46)

Ireland 0.01 0.005# 0% 0Italy 2 50%IT1 1Luxembourg 0 0 0% 0Netherlands 1.1 0.5# 0% 0Portugal 1 0.5# 10% 0.05Sweden 1.3

(0.39)0.17

(0.06)1.47

(0.45)<5%SE1 <0.07

UnitedKingdomUK1

0.92 0.5 1.42 0.54(0.32)

0.17(0.10)

0.71(0.42)

45% 0.3

Total >10 ∼∼∼∼ 2Notes:

Estimates** Quantities of pulp processed are extracted from Eurostat database, EUROPROMS

and are calculated from quantities of pulp produced plus quantities of pulp importedminus quantities of sludge exported.

* Quantity expressed as dry weight into brackets# Sludge production is estimated assuming 500 kg sludge produced per tonne of pulp@ Assuming 50% DSB1 For paper sludge only – there is no recycling to land of de-inking sludgeES1 Probably very limited recycling to agriculture but 15% reported to forestryF1 From the production of 9.1 x106 tonnes of paper


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

22

IT1 A small percentage is recycled directly to agriculture, a larger proportion goes to landreclamation

SE1 Land reclamation onlyUK1 From the production of 1 x106 tonnes of newsprints only

3.1.3 Fruit and vegetable processing

The fruit and vegetable processing industry is a major water consumer, producing largevolumes of wastewater. A significant proportion of the water consumed is used for washingpurposes. For example, the preserves industry consumes 10 to 50 m3 of water per tonne ofnew material processed.

The effluent generated from the food industry is either spread directly on agricultural land ortreated in an on-site or municipal (domestic/industrial) wastewater treatment plant. A companychoice between installing an effluent treatment plant on site or spreading it directly is notsolely dictated by economic factors but also by the local agricultural situation.

Two vegetable processing activities commonly relying on the agricultural outlet for their wasteare the sugar beet processing industry (important industry for the Northern countries) and theolive oil sector (for the Southern countries). There are numerous other specialised sectorswhich also potentially rely on the agricultural outlet such as processing of tomatoes orpotatoes, manufacturing of jam, fruit juices, etc. The quantities of waste generated and thepercentages recycled to land have been estimated for these different other sectors together.

Sugar beet processing industry

Sugar beet processing is characterised by large seasonal fluctuations as the activity takesplace from September to December. Sugar beet washing generates large quantities of dirtywater containing in suspension soil and sugar. This effluent can be landspread directly duringthe harvesting season or stored in a sedimentation lagoon. Very few plants have an effluenttreatment plant on site. From the sedimentation lagoon, water is recycled and sludge collectedat the bottom of these lagoons is either spread on land or used as landfill cover or soil materialin land reclamation projects, or left in the lagoons as this compound is quite odorous. Thesludge has an average dry solids content of 50% DS and it is estimated that on average 230kg of soil and green waste are collected per tonne of sugar beet processed.

The clean sugar beets are shredded and the sugar juice is extracted from the pulp. The pulpis then sometimes dried before being sold as fodder. The juice is clarified by adding a limesolution. The lime sludge arising from the addition of lime to sugar solution for clarifying thejuice is not considered as a waste and is landspread as fertiliser. Its dry solids content variesbetween 45 to 70% DS. It is estimated that 60 kg of lime sludge is generated per tonne of beetprocessed.

A series of evaporation, crystallisation and drying produce the sugar and molasses.Subsequently, a certain percentage of molasses can be distilled to produce alcohol. Theseprocesses generate vinasse which can be recycled to land or used as animal feed. Anotherby-product is potassium sulphate which can be used as fertiliser.

The estimates of lagoon sludge and lime sludge produced by the sugar industry in Europe arepresented in Table 3.6. It was not possible to extract information on quantities of sugar beet


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

23

processed per country from the Eurostat database. It was assumed that the sugar processingindustry was not important in Spain, Greece and Portugal and that the quantities of sludgegenerated from sugar beet processing could be related to the size of a country for the othercountries. It was decided to use the information reported for Denmark to estimate the wastearising in the Netherlands and Austria. Similarly, to extrapolate from information in France andGermany to the situation in the UK.

Table 3.6 Estimates of sludge generated from the sugar beet processing industry inEurope

Country Quantityof sugar

beetprocessed

( x106

tonnes)

Quantity of sludge(x106 tonnes fresh weight)*

Recycling to land

Lagoonsludge

Limesludge

Total (%) (x106

tonnesfresh

weight)

Austria ~0.3 ~0.1Belgium ~0.4 100B1 0.4**

(0.2)Denmark 3.5 ~0.2 ~0.1 ~0.3 100DK1 ~0.1Germany (0.82) ~100 1.6**

(0.8)Greece 0 0Spain 0 0Finland >0.001 0.1 ~0.1France 30 7

(4)**1.8

(0.9)**~9 100%F1 ~2

Ireland ~0.3 0.1**(0.06)

Italy ~15 ~4 1.1IT1

Luxembourg 0 0Netherlands ~0.3 ~0.1Portugal 0 0Sweden 0.12

(0.08)SE1100 0.12

(0.08)UnitedKingdomUK1

~9 ~2

Total ~25 ~8Notes:

Estimates* Quantity expressed as dry weight into brackets** Assuming a 50% DSB1 Both lime sludge and soil are reused on landDK1 Lime sludge only, lagoon sludge is not recycled to agriculture but is left in lagoon

which are redeveloped once full.


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

24

F1 Lime sludge is a standardised products sold as fertilisers to farmers due to its highlime content and other nutritive elements. A proportion of lagoon sludge islandspread but it is depending on the local situation.

IT1 Landspread in agriculture or reclamation projects

Olive oil processing

Olive oil processing is an important sector for the Southern Member countries such as Spain,Italy and Greece and to a lesser extent Portugal (Table 3.7) and France (~40,000 ha).

Table 3.7 Production of olives and olive oil in Europe (FAOSTAT 1998)

Area(x106 ha)

Olive produced(x106 tonnes)

Olive oil produced(x106 tonnes)

Spain 2.1 3.8 0.95Italy 1.14 2.2 0.45Greece 0.73 1.9 0.43Portugal 0.32 0.29 0.04

There are essentially two oil extraction systems; a traditional pressing process andcentrifugation techniques at 3 or 2 phases. The wastes generated are composed of a solidfraction made of residues of pressed olive, pulp and oil which can be chemically extracted andof a liquid fraction called alpechin which is acidic, not easily biodegraded, with a high organicmatter and polyphenol content. The centrifugation requires a greater amount of water andenergy and thus generates more wastewater (Table 3.8).

The total quantities of waste generated from olive oil processing have been estimated in Table3.9 based on data for Italy.

Table 3.8 Coefficient for waste arisings from olive oil processing (Stölting, perscomm 2000)

Method Waste type Quantity

Traditional pressing process Solid waste(~ 25% water + 6% oil)

~400 kg/tonne olive

Waste water (~88% water) 400-600 l/tonne oliveThree-phase decanter Solid waste

(~50% water + 4% oil)500-600 kg/tonne olive

Wastewater (~94% + 1% oil) 1000-1200 l /tonne oliveTwo-phase decanter Solid waste

(~60% water + 3 % oil)800 – 950 kg/tonne olive


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

25

Table 3.9 Estimates of waste generated from olive oil processing in Europe

Country Quantitiesprocessed

(x106 tonnes)

Waste arisings(x106 tonnes)

Recycling to land

Trad.Method

Cent. Wastewater

Solidwaste

% (x106

tonnes)Italy 2.13

(60%)1.42

(40%)2.4 1.6 40 % IT1 ~1

Greece 1.1 0.76 1.4 0.8 40 % 0.6Portugal 0.18 0.12 0.2 0.1 40 % >0.1Spain 2.3 1.5 2.8 1.6 40 % > 1Total ~7.0 ~4.0 >3Notes:

EstimatesIT1 For wastewater only. Cake after further extraction of oil can be used as fuel substitute.

Other vegetable/fruit processing

The wastes generated from the other vegetable and fruit sectors such as jam, fruit juiceproduction are composed of soil, wastewater, fruit pulp, stalks, peels/skins, leaves, etc. Ifwastewater is treated on site, sludge produced from treatment of wastewater and soil can bespread in agriculture and the other waste re-used as animal feed. In the Northern countries,fruit and vegetables are often imported as semi-processed products which generates lesswaste at the processing plant.

It was reported that waste arisings from vegetable processing represent 0.2% of raw materialfor soil and vegetable residue and 2% for sludge. It was also reported that the quantity ofwaste spread on land from vegetable processing industry was equivalent to 0.1% of newmaterial. It was impossible however to extract production figures from the Eurostat databasefor the fruit and vegetable market due to the vast number of entries. It was decided toextrapolate the waste arisings from countries with better data for these sectors such asBelgium, Denmark and Italy and applying our expert judgement in assuming the size of thesemarkets and thus the waste arising and recycling percentage. The total quantities of wastegenerated from fruit and vegetable processing industry outside olive oil and sugar beetprocessing in Europe is summarised in Table 3.10.


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

26

Table 3.10 Estimates of waste generated from other fruit and vegetable processingsectors in Europe

Country Waste arisings(x106 tonnes)

Recycling to land*

% (x106 tonnes)**Austria 0.54 5 0.03

(0.001)Belgium 0.06

(0.003)Denmark 2.8DK1 2.1

(0.03)Germany 3 5 0.15

(0.007)Greece 1 5 0.05

(0.002)Spain 3 5 0.15

(0.007)Finland 3 5 0.15

(0.007)France 3 5 0.15

(0.007)Ireland 1 5 0.1

(0.007)Italy 3.3 6 0.2

(0.01)Luxembourg 0.5 5 0.02

(0.001)Netherlands 3 5 0.15

(0.007)Portugal 1 5 0.05

(0.002)Sweden 0.9 5 0.05

(0.002)United Kingdom 3 5 0.15

(0.007)Total ~30 >3

(>0.2)Notes:

Estimates* Quantity expressed as dry weight into brackets** Assuming a 5% DSDK1 Mainly from potatoes processing generating 2.6 x106 tonnes of waste including 1.5

x106 tonnes of potato fruit water with 0.5% DS and 0.85 x106 tonnes of potato fruitjuice with 5% DS.


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

27

3.1.4 Abattoirs and rendering plants

It was reported that about 21% of an animal is waste when processed. Wastes from abattoirsinclude blood, bones, feathers, stomach and bowel contents, manure, wash waters andsludge from dissolved air flotation treatment where this process has been used to separatesolids from liquid waste materials of the abattoir.

Between 80 and 90% of abattoir waste is re-used or recycled mainly into the feedingstuffindustry. Hoof parts and bone meal are recycled in other industries (e.g. fertiliser and glue).Between 5 to 10 % are landspread after composting or without any treatment. This is mainlygut contents which consists predominantly of partly digested feed or vegetable matter. Thewash water from holding areas and vehicles is also typically landspread or discharged tosewer. Application of blood to land is now a less common.

The estimates of waste arisings from abattoirs in Table 3.11 is extrapolated from Eurostatdatabase, Europroms on quantities of guts, bladders and stomachs assuming that 100% arerecycled to land.

Table 3.11 Estimates of stomach content recycled to land from abattoirs in Europe

Country Waste recycled to land(x106 tonnes) (fresh weight basis)

Austria 0.005Belgium 0.005Denmark 0.06Germany 0.09Greece 0.001Spain 0.075Finland 0.001France 0.2Ireland 0.01Italy 0.1Luxembourg 0Netherlands 0.05Portugal 0.015Sweden NDUnited Kingdom 0.006Total ~ 0.6Note:

Estimates

3.1.5 Other food and drink sectors

There are other sectors which rely also on the agricultural outlet to dispose of some of theirwaste such as dairy, fish processing, breweries and distilleries and soft drinks.


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

28

The majority of waste products generated from the food sectors are re-processed or sold to bere-used for raw material substitution in animal feed or road construction, etc. Wastes arisingfrom milk production include whey (liquid phase), wash water and a solid phase. About 90% ofmilk used for cheese-making ends up as whey. Effluent produced varies between 1 to 6 l ofeffluent per litre of milk processed. The majority of solid waste is re-processed, used in animalfeed. Effluents are often treated and the sludge landspread. It is unclear what percentage islandspread. For this survey, we have estimated that less than 1% is landspread. Frombreweries and distilleries, wastes include grain husks and yeast mainly reused in animal feed.It is estimated that less than 15% are landspread based on Denmark data. The estimates forthese sectors are presented in Table 3.12. It has been assumed that the production for thewhole of Europe was at least 15 times the waste arisings for Denmark and less than 3% wasrecycled to land.

Table 3.12 Estimates of waste arising from other food sectors in Europe (x106

tonnes) (as fresh weight)

Country Fish/shellfishprocessing

Dairy Brewery/Distillery

Total Recycledto land

Denmark 0.4 1.8DK1 0.2DK2/0.08DK3 ~2.5 ~0.06Other countries ~37 ~0.9Total ~40 ~1Notes:

DK1 As whey containing 20% proteinsDK2 For a production of around 1 x106 m3 of beerDK3 For a production of around 12 x103 m3 of spirit

3.1.6 Leather production

Tanneries are falling under IPPC Regulations. The tannery operation consists of transformingthe raw hide, a highly putrescible material, into leather, a stable product which can beconserved indefinitely and which has a significant commercial value, by a sequence ofchemical and mechanical processes. Tanning is the most important step in the production ofleather and is carried out in an aqueous environment in rotating drums. During tanningoperation, collagen, the principal protein of the skin, will fix the tanning agents, thus stoppingthe putrefaction phenomenon conferring to leather its stability and essential characteristics.Leather needs then to be dried with colouring agents and soaked with natural or synthetic fatsin order to render the product flexible.

The leather manufacturing activity generates liquid and solid wastes. The solid wastes fromtanneries consist of hairs, which can be composted if they are pre-degraded in the preparationof hides. The second waste is a liquid effluent rich in organic matter and suspended solidswhich when treated produces a sludge rich in nitrogen. Other by-products such as glue andgelatine are also generated from untanned wastes. Collagens can be used in food andcosmetics industry. Sludge can be anaerobically digested with other tanning wastes beforebeing landspread or can be landfilled if chromium content is too high.

There are reductions possible in water consumption currently as high as 50 m3 of water pertonne of raw cow hide down to 12 m3 if efficient controls are implemented. Around 90% of theindustry use chromium salts in the tanning process which can be lost up to 50% in effluent


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

29

and thus contaminates sludge. There are other substances of concerns also used duringprocessing such as halogenated compounds for degreasing animal skins.

In 1998, there were around 3,000 tanneries in Europe. The majority of which employed lessthan 20 people. In Italy alone there were 2,400 tanneries employing 25,000 people. Italy is thebiggest leather producer in Europe with 190 million m2 of leather produced per yearcorresponding to more than 1 million tonne of raw hide processed. It is followed by Spain,Portugal, Germany, the UK and France.

A large proportion of waste generated by the leather industry in Italy is re-used in fertiliserproduction. In France, the most common disposal route for tannery waste is landfill as it canbe contaminated by chromium used in the tanning process.

The quantities of cattle skin processed in Europe have been extracted from Eurostatdatabase, Europroms (Table 3.13). It was reported that 1 tonne of raw hides generates 600 kgof solid waste and 15 to 50 m3 of effluent containing 250 kg of COD and 100 kg of BOD andthat around 400,000 tonnes of sludge per year were produced by European tanneries, a largeamount of which is landfilled. Based on figures available for Italy and France, it has beenestimated that between 3 to 9 kg of sludge is produced per square metre of leather producedamounting to a total of 900,000 tonnes of sludge per annum.

It can be estimated that quantities of sludge from leather processing was between 400,000and 900,000 tonnes on fresh weight basis, the majority being landfilled.

Table 3.13 Estimates of sludge generated from leather processing sectors in Europe

Country Leatherproduced(x106m2)

Sludgeproduction

(x103 tonnes)*

Recycling to land

(%) (x103 tonnes)

Austria 0.015 0.1# 0% 0Belgium 0.08 0.7# ? (0.3)Denmark 2.8DK1

(0.5)Finland 0.05 0.4# 0% 0France 0.7 7 (0.7) 10% >1Germany 1.5 13# 0% 0Greece 0.1GR1 0.3** 30% 0.09Ireland 0.005 0.01** 0% 0Italy 190 580 30% 160Luxembourg 0 0 0% 0Netherlands 0.07 0.6# 0% 0Portugal 1.7 5** 30% 1.5Spain 90ES1 270** 30% 80Sweden 0.04 0.3# 0% 0UK 3.5 30# 10% 3Total ∼∼∼∼ 900 ∼∼∼∼ 250

Notes:


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

30

Estimates* Quantity expressed as dry weight into brackets** Estimates based on a sludge production of 3 kg per square meter of leather

produced# Estimates based on a higher level of treatment and a sludge production of 9 kg per

square meter of leather producedDK1 Quantity of glue anaerobically digested and then landspread.ES1 Data not available from the Eurostat database, estimated to be half of the Italian

productionGR1 Data not available from the Eurostat database, estimated to be a tenth of the

Portuguese production

3.1.7 Textile production

The textile industry is sub-divided into various sectors such as shearing, washing andcombing of wool, spinning and textile processing. The wool washing and textile processingactivities use large volumes of water which can vary from 10 to 30 l/kg of wool for woolwashing and 150 l per kg for textile processing. Textile processing requires up to tensuccessive treatments such as pre-washing, bleaching, dying, soaping, rinsing, etc. The IPPCDirective imposes that the least polluting processes be adopted in the textile industry before2007 which should help in reducing water consumption of these activities. Some companieshave their own biological treatment to treat their effluents or are connected to sewer but smallunits usually discharge directly into the environment.

Wastes arising from wool washing and combing activities are:

• Suint (natural grease) which is re-used into lanolin for the cosmetics and soap industry;

• Wool dust which can either be landspread or incinerated;

• Effluent which is treated and thus generate sludge (30% ds) which can be incinerated, orcompost and landspread;

• Ash from incineration of sludge and wool dust which is landspread as a potassium soilamendment.

The textile processing activities also give rise to sludge. It has been estimated that on averageand depending on the volume of effluent treated, 200 kg of sludge is produced per tonne oftextile processed with an average of 13% of dry solids. Depending on the process, sludge richin organic matter can contain bleaching agents, heavy metals from dyes and can either belandfilled, incinerated or landspread. It was reported that transport of sludge for landspreadingis only economical within a radius of 50 km.

It was impossible to extract the relevant information from the Eurostat database, Europromson textile sectors to try to estimate the quantities of wool and textile processed. It was decidedto extrapolate from detailed information available for France to the whole of Europe and toassume that for the rest of Europe, textile industry is generating 5 times as much waste as inFrance from which 10% is recycled to land (Table 3.14). The quantities of sludge generatedfrom textile processing sectors are small and should not increase due to closing down andcurrent programme of reduction of water consumption implemented in the industry. In additionto sludge, some quantities of wool dust are also recycled to land, as well as some ashes,residues from incineration of sludge and dust.


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

31

Table 3.14 Estimates of sludge generated from textile processing sectors in Europe*

Sludge production (x106tonnes) Recycling to land

Woolwashing/combing

Textileprocessing

Total (%) (x106

tonnes)

France 0.03-0.035(0.01)

0.065-0.07(0.01)

0.095-0.105(0.02)

35% 0.04(0.007)

Othercountries

5 10% 0.05

Total ∼∼∼∼ 5 ∼∼∼∼ 0.1Note:

* Quantity expressed as dry weight into brackets

3.1.8 Other sectors

The other sectors generating organic waste which are recycled to agriculture on a case bycase basis are wood processing, basic organic chemical industry and pharmaceuticalindustry. The estimates of waste arising and recycled to land are presented in Table 3.15. Itwas assumed that quantities of waste recycled to land for the rest of Europe from the organicchemical industry and pharmaceutical sector amounted to 5 times the quantities reported inDenmark.

Table 3.15 Estimates for organic waste arising from other sectors in Europe (x106

tonnes as fresh weight) *

Country Waste arising(x106 tonnes)

Recycled to land

(%) (x106 tonnes)Denmark 0.7 (0.01)Ireland (0.06) 5 0.02** (0.003)Other Member countries ~ 3.5Total ~ 4Notes:

* Quantity expressed as dry weight into brackets** Assuming 15% DS

3.1.9 Mineral waste

The most comprehensive data on mineral waste recycled to land is available in Germanywhich has been estimated to amount to about 3 million tonnes per year including about 0.8million tonnes ds of lime sludge from sugar beet processing. Mineral wastes commonlyrecycled to land originate from different sectors listed below:


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

32

• Chemical industry: iron salts from Titanium dioxide production, ammonium sulphate,residual lime

• Energy production: residual lime from coal burning, ash from wood burning

• Clay and mineral exploitation: rock and soil, residual lime, waste gypsum

• Metal production and processing.

• Drinking water supply and industrial decarbonatation: sludge

• Dredging: spoil.

The estimates of mineral waste arisings and recycled to land are presented in Table 3.16. Ithas been assumed that quantities for the rest of Europe was equal to 5 times the quantitiesreported for Germany.

Table 3.16 Estimates of mineral wastes recycled to land in Europe (x106 tonnes asfresh weight)

Country Waste arising Recycled to land

Germany ~ 50 ~ 2.5Other countries ~250 12.5Total ~300 ~15

3.2 Outlets and treatment

In some countries there is increasing public concern about the volumes of untreated animalwaste being landspread. This has led to the development of various schemes, which eitherstill lead finally to reuse on farmland, or remove this option entirely. These schemes are mostdeveloped in Sweden where a proportion of animal manure produced is anaerobicallydigested or composted with other industrial wastes before being recycled to land. In theNetherlands and Belgium, schemes are being developed where wastes will be treated and notspread on land, this is due to the increasing pressure of large volumes of waste on relativelysmall areas of farmland and the environmental risks associated with over-application.

In all European countries the options for industrial waste destination are broadly similar, reuseby landspreading or raw material substitution; treatment followed by disposal or reuse; ordisposal to landfill, foul sewer or incineration. However, the proportion of wastes going tothese destinations differs widely between countries and regions. This is due to a number offactors including, legislation, local economy, including presence of related industry; localinfrastructure; relative distance to agricultural outlets, and the perceptions of resident farmers,population and food industry. The volume of waste produced by similar industrial sectors canalso vary considerably from region to region depending on the state of raw materials andindustrial processes used. This is particularly the case for the food processing industry thatmay use partly processed raw materials due to their location in relation to raw materialproduction. It is for these reasons that estimates of quantities of industrial waste landspreadwould involve a detailed assessment of industrial and farming practice from region to region


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

33

within member countries. This is beyond the scope of this project but would form a very usefulfuture investigation.

3.3 Recording and reporting systems

Aside from problems with lack of figures for waste quantities, difficulties were alsoencountered when drawing comparisons between the Member States: Individual countries allhave different recording systems and methods of reporting. Differences encountered includeduse of different waste classification categories and different methods of measurement anddata collection. For example, in Denmark, industry is required to submit detailed accounts ofquantity and quality of waste spread on land, statistics from these accounts are publishedperiodically by the Danish Environmental Protection Agency (Appendix C). Whereas, currentlyin the UK, the Environment Agency only requires to be notified of the location of thelandspreading activity and the maximum quantity of waste to be spread there. Statisticsproduced, therefore, are expected to be less accurate. Other countries have no reportingrequirement and statistics are based on broad authority estimates. For this reasoncomparisons between countries should be considered generally and not considered absolute.

The findings underline the need for a unified approach across the EU to the landspreading ofwastes in terms of classification, authorisation and record-keeping. This is necessary toprovide a level playing field for stakeholders and to ensure a high level of environmentalprotection from landspreading of industrial wastes.


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2July 2001

/11768-1 34


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

35

4. PROPERTIES OF WASTES RELEVANT TO AGRICULTURALBENEFIT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

This Section draws on the detailed information from each Member State (Appendices) topresent a summary guide to each of the main categories of waste and includes suggestionsfor pretreatment and good practice for use on the land. Not all categories of waste could beincluded because of different classification schemes between Member States and a lack ofinformation for some wastes. Also, sewage sludge and compost are outside the remit of thisstudy.

4.1 Farm Animal wastes

4.1.1 Typical composition

The fertiliser value of manures and slurries is highly variable from farm to farm and isdependent on factors such as type of livestock (species, breed and age), diet, type ofproduction, housing system and waste handling system. The dry matter content and nutrientcontent can also vary considerably from one batch to another. It is thus difficult to come upwith a single value on quality of animal manure and slurry. For example feeding standards forN content in practice differ from recommendations and vary between countries, and especiallywith grazing animals, diet composition is less under control than for other livestock categoriessuch as pigs and poultry. Moreover, N content of grass varies greatly. In addition, nitrogenlosses from animal excreta vary according to the housing and storage systems.

Typical ranges for nutrient content of farmyard manures and slurries in Europe are givenbelow in Table 4.1 (Hall 1999). A recent EC study has established criteria for the assessmentof nitrogen content of animal manure, the results for each animal category are reported inTable 4.2 and compared to previous values submitted by Eurostat. Based on the informationcollected during this survey, information on other parameters for each category of livestock ispresented in the Table 4.3– to 4.7.

Table 4.1 Typical nutrient content of farm yard manure in Europe (Hall 1999)

DM(%)

Nitrogen(kg N t-1)

Phosphorus(kg P2O5 t

-1)Potassium(kg K2O t-1)

FYMCattle 20-50 4-9 1-8 4-12Pigs 25 5-6 1-6 4Sheep 35-44 10-14 2-3 1-10SlurryCattle 1-18 2-18 1-12 2-15Pigs 1-18 2-16 1-12 2-9Sheep 25-46 14-17 4-21 3-15FYM – Farm yard manure


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

36

Table 4.2 Comparison of EUROSTAT data on N in manure for livestock in ECMember States (EC 1999)

N content(kg N animal-1 year-1)

Livestock type EUROSTAT EC 1999

CattleDairy cows 68 – 133 60 – 147Other cows 51 – 101 44 – 1150 – 1 year 15 – 40 18 – 401 – 2 year 37 – 85 31 – 74> 2year 40 – 85 35 – 81PigSows with piglets till 25 kg 12 – 33 21 – 32Slaughter pigs (25 – 100 kg) 3.4 – 12.8 7.5 – 13.1PoultryLaying hens 0.45 – 0.90 0.35 – 0.82Broilers, 1.8 kg 0.06 – 0.64 0.23 – 0.52Ducks, 3.3 kg 0.24 – 2.07 0.41 – 0.97Turkeys, 13 kg 0.24 – 2.07 0.90 – 1.68SheepEwes with lamb till 40 kg 9 – 23 13 – 26GoatFemales with kids till 7 kg 10 –20 13 – 21RabbitFemales with kittens 0.21 – 7.60 3.9 – 6.9Horses 40 – 120 35 - 90

Limitations of the data

There is a vast amount of information on nutrient content of farm wastes. There is morelimited information on their metal content and no information on their organic content. Theinformation on the quality of the waste was mainly provided from Denmark, France, Germanyand United Kingdom. When information on a particular parameter was only available from onecountry, the figure was reported as a mean value.


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

37

Table 4.3 Typical composition of cattle manure

ELEMENTS Min Max Mean

Dry solids (%) 20 50

C/N ratio

pH 7.3

Agricultural value (kg t-1) (fresh weight)

Organic matter 130 150

N-TK 4 9

N-NH4 1.5 3.1

P2O5 1 8

K2O 2.5 12

CaO 1.8 4.2

MgO 0.5 1.5

SO3

Na2O 1.3

Oligo elements (mg kg-1 DS)

Iron- Fe

Manganese- Mn

Molybdenum- Mo

Boron-B

Cobalt- Co 0.7

Heavy metals (mg kg-1 DS)

Cadmium - Cd 0.1 0.4

Chromium -Cr 0.4 2.6

Copper - Cu 15 75

Mercury - Hg

Nickel - Ni 1 14

Lead - Pb 1.4 4.3

Zinc - Zn 63 175

Selenium - Se

Organic compounds (mg kg-1 DS)

PAHSum of 7 PCB


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

38

Table 4.4 Typical composition of cattle slurry


Dry solids (%) 1 18

C/N ratio

pH

Agricultural value (kg t-1) fresh weight basis


N-TK 2 18

N-NH4 0.6 2.2

P2O5 1 12

K2O 2 15

CaO 0.3 4.5

MgO 0.3 1.5

SO3

Na2O 0.8


Iron- Fe 4000

Manganese- Mn 400

Molybdenum- Mo

Boron-B

Cobalt- Co 1.9



Chromium -Cr 2.6 15

Copper - Cu 31 70

Mercury - Hg 0.17

Nickel - Ni 3.3 14

Lead - Pb 4.3 5.8

Zinc - Zn 132 750

Selenium - Se 0.2


PAH

Sum of 7 PCB


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

39

Table 4.5 Typical composition of pig manure


Dry solids (%) 25

C/N ratio

pH


Organic matter 160

N-TK 5 7

N-NH4 0.7 2.5

P2O5 1 7.6

K2O 4

CaO 6

MgO 2.5

SO3

Na2O


Iron- Fe

Manganese- Mn

Molybdenum- Mo

Boron-B

Cobalt- Co


Cadmium - Cd 0.7

Chromium -Cr 1.9

Copper - Cu 346

Mercury - Hg

Nickel - Ni 5

Lead - Pb 2.8

Zinc - Zn 387

Selenium - Se

Organic compounds (mg/kg-1 DS)

PAH

Sum of 7 PCB


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

40

Table 4.6 Typical composition of pig slurry


Dry solids (%) 1 18

C/N ratio

pH



N-TK 2 16

N-NH4 2.1 3.6

P2O5 1 12

K2O 2 9

CaO 1.4 6.7

MgO 0.5 1.8

SO3

Na2O 0.8 0.9


Iron- Fe

Manganese- Mn

Molybdenum- Mo

Boron-B

Cobalt- Co


Cadmium – Cd 0.2 0.5

Chromium -Cr 2.4 18

Copper - Cu 180 574

Mercury - Hg 0.05

Nickel - Ni 3.2 17

Lead - Pb <1 12

Zinc - Zn 403 919

Selenium - Se 0.6


PAH

Sum of 7 PCB


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

41

Table 4.7 Typical composition of poultry manure


Dry solids (%) 30 60

C/N ratio

pH


Organic matter

N-TK 14 29

N-NH4 5.3 6.1

P2O5 12.4 25

K2O 8.4 21

CaO 14.5 40.5

MgO 1.2 4.2

SO3

Na2O 9.2


Iron- Fe 1500

Manganese- Mn 600

Molybdenum- Mo

Boron-B

Cobalt- Co 0.5



Chromium -Cr 4.1 24

Copper - Cu 59 100

Mercury - Hg

Nickel - Ni 4.9 17

Lead - Pb 2.2 4

Zinc - Zn 403 556

Selenium - Se 0.6


PAH

Sum of 7 PCB


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

42

4.1.2 Background

Animal manures and slurries have been used for centuries to fertilise the land. The majorplant nutrients are imported to livestock in animal feed but animals utilised only a smallproportion of these nutrients and the rest is excreted. If livestock manure is not recycled toland, the farmer is not recovering the full value of the imported feed and unless these wastesare managed efficiently as a fertiliser, pollution occurs.

In the last 50 years, intensive livestock production has increased significantly across Europeto produce a cheap and balanced supply of food. This has resulted in large increases in thequantities of farm yard manure and slurry produced and their inadequate management. Theintensive livestock units have separated themselves from the land where the food source isproduced and where the manure and slurries can be returned to. Especially in areas wherethere has been insufficient land area, the nutrient pollution from agriculture due to inadequatedisposal of manure and slurry has progressively degraded the quality of water resources aswell as soil acidification and ecosystem degradation.

Animal densities vary however widely across Europe with generally low densities in theSouthern European countries and much higher densities in the North. For pigs, for example,the density in Northern Europe is about ten times greater than that in the southern countries.Nevertheless, even in countries with lower animal densities, localised diffuse pollution of riversalso happens.

4.1.3 Key properties

The agronomic value of livestock manures depends on their nutrient, organic matter and traceelement content. The water content of slurry and dirty water may also be of value for irrigation.For example, slurry is very rich in ammoniacal nitrogen which can be rapidly assimilated byplants while solid manure has a slower release of nutrient and has beneficial effect on the soilstructure.

4.1.4 Potential impact on water quality

Animal wastes are responsible for a large number of diffuse pollution of both surface andgroundwaters. Following manure application to land, ammonium-N (plus uric acid N for poultrymanure) will be converted to nitrate-N which is susceptible to leaching.

Most animal excreta such as slurries have a high biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) rangingfrom 10,000 to 30,000 mg l-1 which if entering a watercourse after application to land candeplete the available oxygen content in water and result in ammonia levels which are toxic tomany aquatic animals. High BOD waste added to wet soils can give rise to anaerobicconditions in soil due to soil oxygen depletion and result in poor plant growth. Manures andslurries also contain suspended solids which can increase turbidity in water and smotherbenthic fauna and flora.

4.1.5 Potential impact on soil quality

Manures and slurries can contain high levels of potential toxic elements (PTEs), particularlyzinc and copper due to the use of mineral supplements and veterinary products. This is moreproblematic for pig slurry which can contain up to 600 mg/kg ds of copper and up to 900


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

43

mg/kg ds of zinc, compared to the current EC recommended limit value for sewage sludgeused in agriculture of 2500 mg kg ds for zinc and 1000 mg kg ds for copper.

4.1.6 Odour nuisance and potential impacts on air quality

Pig and poultry farms produce the most complaints about odour. The storage on farms of suchwastes can also cause problems if the wastes turn anaerobic and give rise to strong odourwhen the crust is broken.

The sources of ammonia from livestock production are from animal housing, waste handling,storage and landspreading. It has been reported that more than half of the emissions arosefrom spreading slurry on land. Soil incorporation can be very effective in reducing odour but itmust be done rapidly, i.e. within hours or via injection if a significant reduction in losses is tobe achieved. The dry matter content has a large influence on ammonia losses from surfaceapplication of slurries and other liquid manures.

The emissions from landspreading of the two greenhouse gases nitrous oxide (N2O) andmethane (CH4) are relatively small compared with emissions from manure stores, fertilisedland, housing and outdoor livestock.

4.1.7 Potential impacts on animal and human health

Animal manures contain pathogenic elements in variable quantities depending on the animalhealth. Manures are applied without treatment and restrictions on the application to land ofagricultural wastes are less stringent than other wastes. They potentially represent a greaterrisk because of the large volumes compared with other wastes for possible contamination ofmeat, dairy products, vegetables and water resources. In many cases, manures and slurriesare applied on the same farm that they originated from. While this practice does not reducethe risk to humans or wild animals, the resident animal population is likely to become re-infected.

There have been reports on cases of drinking water supplies contaminated by cattle slurryresulting in outbreaks of disease in people.

4.1.8 Potential impacts on plant health

The risks associated with the application of agricultural and horticultural wastes are not welldocumented. Farm slurry is not perceived to be a risk to plant health because it usually takesplace on the farm of origin. It is possible that potato cyst nematode may pass through theanimal gut if it is present in feed and thus be present in slurry.

4.1.9 Variability

The nutrient content of manures is highly variable from farm to farm and is dependent onfactors such as type of livestock (species, breed and age), diet, type of production and wastehandling system. The dry matter content and nutrient content can also vary considerably fromone batch to another.


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

44

4.1.10 Treatment

Most farm animal wastes are not treated. There are, however, examples of treatments appliedto farm wastes such as anaerobic digestion at the farm level or in centralised treatmentcentres. Unfortunately there are no successful large scale processing plants in operation.Liquid animal waste could be added to the sewage and treated in a wastewater treatmentworks.

There has been success in reducing nutrient release in manures through feed improvement.The other way of controlling the input of nutrient, is by taking into account more accurately theamount added to the soil by manure application together with the other fertilisers and the setup a clear objective at the farm level.

4.1.11 Application/storage

The application of livestock manure varies widely between European countries from > 200 kgN ha-1 and > 100 kg P ha–1 in the Netherlands to < 40 kg N ha-1 and < 20 kg P ha-1 in SouthernEurope (Hall 1999).

Poultry manure may contain up to 30 kg of N per tonne and thus should be spread at a rate ofless than 8.5 tonnes per ha to comply with an N limit of 250 kg N per ha.


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

45

4.2 Blood and gut contents from abattoirs

4.2.1 Quality data

A summary of the quality data from the European reports is displayed in Tables 4.8 – 4.10below:


Comparable quality data for these wastes were only available from the UK, France andBelgium. There is also some quality data for abattoir waste in the German country report(Appendix F), this was not included as different waste categories were used.


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

46

Table 4.8 Abattoir waste – blood


Dry solids (%) 0 38 11

C/N ratio

pH 5.3 10.3 6.6

BOD (mg l-1) 88 122 000 33 100

Agricultural value (% DM)

Organic matter

N-TK 0.6 34.5 12

N-NH4 0 7.3 1.5

Mg 0 0.3 0.03

P2O5 0 10.8 1.2

K2O 0 5.8 0.9


Cadmium – Cd <0.25 <0.7 <0.25

Chromium –Cr <0.1 3.2 0.3

Copper – Cu 0.3 34 3.2

Mercury – Hg <0.01 10 <0.01

Nickel – Ni <1.0 5.7 0.4

Lead – Pb <0.1 10 0.3

Zinc – Zn 0.1 87 13


PAHs

Sum of 7 PCB


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

47

Table 4.9 Abattoir waste – stomach contents


Dry solids (%) 2.4 21

C/N ratio 16.6 27 22

pH 5.2 9.7

BOD (mg l-1) 6000 41 000 18 000

Agricultural value (% DS)

Organic matter 88 93 90

N-TK 0.2 26

N-NH4 0 0.6

CaO 0.8 1.8 1.3

MgO 0.1 0.2 0.15

P2O5 0.0 3.4

K2O 0 1


Cadmium – Cd <0.25 0.5

Chromium –Cr <1 14

Copper – Cu 0.8 51

Mercury - Hg <0.01 0.1

Nickel - Ni <1 12

Lead - Pb <0.1 54

Zinc - Zn 2.4 122


Fluoranthene <0.1 <0.5

Benzo (b) fluoranthene <0.1 0.4

Benzo (a) pyrene <0.1 0.6

Sum of 7 PCB <0.0007 0.2


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

48

Table 4.10 Abattoir waste – sludge



C/N ratio 6 24 13

pH 6 13

BOD (mg l-1)



N-TK 1.9 80 22

N-NH4 0.1 0.2 0.1

CaO 3.5 44 17

MgO 0 4 1

P2O5 1.7 36 11

K2O 0.8 4.4 1.3


Cadmium – Cd 0.1 1

Chromium –Cr 5 71

Copper – Cu 5 210

Mercury - Hg 0.03 1.2

Nickel - Ni 7.7 36

Lead - Pb 10 54

Zinc - Zn 133 1099


Fluoranthene <0.1 <0.5

Benzo (b) fluoranthene <0.1 0.4

Benzo (a) pyrene <0.1 0.6

Sum of 7 PCB <0.0007 0.2


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

49

4.2.2 Background

Wastes from abattoirs include blood, gut contents, wash waters and sludge from dissolved airflotation treatment where this process has been used to separate solids from liquid wastematerials of the abattoir. Some wastes such as hoof parts and bone meal are recycled in otherindustries (e.g. fertiliser and glue). Landspreading of abattoir wastes is probably the bestpracticable environmental option for small-scale abattoirs but it is likely to be much lessappropriate for modern large-scale abattoir operations.

Landspreading of blood and gut contents from abattoirs is liable to cause public nuisance dueto odours and environmental concerns. If spread on the soil surface it is unsightly and there ispotential for disease transmission. The material should be dealt with as for untreated sewagesludge and applied to the land by subsurface soil injection or else incorporated as soon aspossible after spreading on the surface of the arable land. The land-use restrictions as foruntreated sewage sludge should apply. The rate of application of the waste should be inaccordance with crop requirements for nutrients.

4.2.3 Key Properties

Waste blood is produced in large quantities from abattoirs and has various uses includinglandspreading. Its high fertiliser value has been known for a long time, and it is one of themore traditional materials spread on land. Its nitrogen content is extremely high and its levelsof potassium and phosphorus make it a good source of plant nutrients. Nutrients are alsofound to be more available than those found in other organic wastes.

Waste stomach contents consist predominantly of partially digested feed or vegetable matter.As with the blood waste, stomach contents usually contain high levels of nitrogen, potassiumand phosphorus. These nutrients are generally in well balanced proportions with an N:P:Kratio of around 5:1:1. Moderately high ammonium nitrogen content is an added benefit.

As with many other food processing industries, large volumes of wash waters are produced,and the term is often used to describe a wide range of low solid waste materials. Thiscategory can contain dung and urine from animal holding areas and washings fromdistribution vehicles. As for the other abattoir wastes, the wash waters contain a mixture ofnitrogen, potassium and phosphorus but at lower concentrations.

4.2.4 Potential Problems

From the data above, it is seen that abattoir wastes contain high levels of nitrogen, potassiumand phosphorus. If applied in excess to plant requirements, these elements can causepotential water pollution problems, and may also pose a danger to plant health.

These wastes also have a tendency to have a high BOD which makes the waste readilydegradable by soil micro-organisms ; this can rapidly result in anaerobic soil conditions if overapplied.

In general, slaughterhouse wastes are a recognised source of environmental contaminationby Salmonella and other zoonotic pathogens (Wray and Sojka 1977, Edel et al. 1978)Cryptosporidium may occur in gut contents although not necessarily in infective form.Veterinary ante-mortem inspection at slaughterhouses ensures that no animal suffering from


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

50

notifiable disease or any other disease likely to affect the fitness of meat is slaughtered forhuman consumption. However, slaughtered animals may be symptomless carriers ofpathogenic bacteria and therefore slaughterhouse wastes should be used with caution andwith restrictions on land for rearing livestock or grazing after application.

Strict statutory procedures are now enforced at abattoirs and renderers with the intention ofremoving, for separate disposal, components of cattle carcasses which might contain BSE.

Abattoir wastes normally have an offensive odour and may, therefore cause public nuisanceunless appropriate precautions are taken. To minimise odour nuisance, the wastes should beapplied by subsurface injection into grassland or immediately incorporated into arable land.Public nuisance can be reduced by avoidance of spreading in fields close to and upwind ofhousing. Storage for long periods will encourage odours to develop and so should be avoidedwhere possible.

Different types of abattoir wastes will contain different types and percentages of fat, butchicken processing plants are potential sources of high fat materials. Deleterious effects oncrop growth from additions of animal fat are usually observed at relatively low fat percentagescompared to wastes containing other fats and oils. Wastes containing animal fats should beincorporated into the soil.

4.2.5 Variability

Abattoir waste can vary considerably depending on the number and type of animalsprocessed and operating system employed. All wastes should be evaluated for majornutrients, pH and solids and BOD before land application. Blood should also be analysed forelectrical conductivity and sodium.

4.2.6 Treatment

Landspreading of abattoir waste is liable to cause public nuisance through odour andenvironmental concerns, and has potential for disease transmission. It would, therefore, bebeneficial to treat the waste before by a stabilisation process before land application.

Currently, it appears that there are few waste treatment plants installed at abattoirs acrossEurope. These are more popular in Scandanavia, with some having aerobic or anaerobicdigestion facilities that also produce biogas. Abattoirs in some countries are connected to thecommunity waste water system.

4.2.7 Application

As has been discussed in earlier sections in this chapter, abattoir wastes have potential tocause public nuisance and environmental harm. It is therefore imperative that land applicationis handled with great care.

The rate of application of the waste should be based on the level of plant nutrients presentand a waste management plan should be prepared for the site receiving the waste. Otherproperties of the waste such as BOD, electrical conductivity and fat content should also beconsidered when deciding application rate.


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

51

As a general rule all abattoir wastes should be injected into the soil to reduce odour and avoidany potential pathogen transmission, and should not be surface spread on pasture land orforage crops. If these materials are surface spread on arable land, they should beincorporated immediately by ploughing. Injection into grassland should be followed by aminimum interval of three weeks before grass is used for grazing or conservation.

Storage time should be kept to a minimum to avoid further development of odours.


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

52

4.3 Waste from food and drinks preparation

Examples of the average composition of food and drink industry wastes: Food and drinkindustry effluent, food and drink industry sludge, and earth-laden suspensions from sugarprocessing industry

Table 4.11 Average composition of effluent from the food and drink industry


Dry solids (%)

C/N ratio

pH 3.7 7.8 5.6

Suspended materials (mg l-1) 53 19 730 2 952

COD 434 23 000 9 822

Agricultural value (mg l-1)

Organic matter

N-TK 2.2 815 243

N-NH4 0.1 463 72

N-NO3 0.02 55 5.5

P205 1.2 519 122

K20 16 2 582 657

MgO 2.2 173 54

CaO 27 2 170 504

Cl 25 11 634 991

Na2O 17 10 193 968

Heavy metals (µµµµg l-1 DS)

Cadmium - Cd 1.9

Chromium - Cr 46

Copper - Cu 10 257 117

Mercury - Hg 6.6

Nickel - Ni 53

Lead - Pb 33 100 83

Zinc - Zn 200 989 2 347


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

53

Table 4.12 Average composition of food and drink industry sludge


Dry solids (%) 1.3 91 12

C/N ratio 3.6 43 7

pH 2.3 13 7



N-TK 0.7 12 3.5

N-NH4 0.03 4 0.5

P2O5 0.1 16 2.4

K2O 0.1 16 1.4

CaO 1.3 56 10

MgO 0.04 4 0.6

SO3 0.4 1.6 1.5

Na2O 0.4 1.9 1

Oligo elements (mg/kg-1 DS)

Iron- Fe 780 1305 1 042

Manganese- Mn 20 45 32

Molybdenum- Mo 7,9 23 15

Boron-B 11 42 23

Cobalt- Co 0.1 0.8 0.4

Heavy metals (mg/kg-1 DS)

Cadmium - Cd 0.01 10 0.8

Chromium -Cr 0.05 240 28

Copper - Cu 0.10 379 57

Mercury - Hg <0.01 8 0.2

Nickel - Ni 0.10 154 14

Lead - Pb 0.10 250 10

Zinc - Zn 0.10 1 815 199

Selenium - Se 0.35 6 3.7


Fluoranthene 0.01 0.3 0.2

Benzo (b) fluoranthene 0.01 0.05 0.04

Benzo (a) pyrene 0.01 0.06 0.04

Sum of 7 PCB 0.02 0.21 0.07


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

54

Table 4.13 Average composition of earth laden suspensions in sugar beetprocessing industry


Dry solids (%)

C/N ratio

pH 6.7

Suspended materials (mg l-1) 215 650

COD 10 922

Agricultural value (mg l-1)

Organic matter

N-TK 446

N-NH4 18

N-NO3 0.1

P205 235

K20 495

MgO 305

CaO 990

Cl 187

Na2O 67

Heavy metals (µµµµg l-1 DS)

Cadmium - Cd

Chromium - Cr

Copper - Cu

Mercury - Hg

Nickel - Ni

Lead - Pb

Zinc - Zn

Selenium - Se


The information on the quality of the waste from the food and drink processing industries asreported above mainly come from Denmark, France, Germany and the United Kingdom.


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

55

4.3.1 Background

A large proportion of waste from the food and drink processing industries is re-used in animalfeed (vegetable residue, oil production residue) and in the production of organic fertilisers.

The food processing industry is a major water consumer, producing large volumes ofwastewater that is generally not dangerous but is heavily loaded with organic matter. Asignificant proportion of the water consumed is used for washing purposes. To provide ageneral idea, the dairy industry consumes 2 to 6 m3 of water per tonne of milk entering theplant, the preserves industry 10 to 50 m3 of water per tonne of primary material and breweries4 to 15 m3 of water per tonne of beer produced.

The effluent produced on food industry sites is either spread directly on agricultural land ortreated in an on-site or local mixed (domestic/industrial) wastewater treatment plant. Both thelatter cases lead to the production of sludge. Handling the effluent in a wastewater treatmentplant on site requires the installation of buildings and equipment designed to accommodatethe maximum daily volumes and characteristics of the effluent since the level of its productionand its quality vary throughout the year.

A company's choice between installing an effluent treatment plant on site and spreading theeffluent directly is not solely dictated by economic factors but also by the local agriculturalsituation. Local agriculture may permit the direct spreading of effluent or not, depending on theacceptability of the environmental conditions, the hydrogeological and pedological potential ofthe agricultural sites, the presence of irrigatable crops, etc.


Food processing industry effluent is quite variable in composition, depending on the type ofindustry involved and the period of the year for seasonal industries. The effluent is, however,heavily loaded with potassium. Elements beneficial to plant growth are in solution in the liquidphase and so are rapidly available to plants. Very few trace organic compounds or heavymetals are found in typical effluent from this industry.

The sludge produced by the effluent treatment plants contains high levels of organic matterand nitrogen and has a low C/N ratio. The sludge ferments very easily since the organicmatter it contains breaks down very rapidly. For this reason the sludge requires to bestabilised.

A large proportion of the effluent or sludge produced by the food and drink processing industrytends to be produced in varying volumes throughout the year, this is dependent on cropharvesting times. The quality of the effluent can also vary quite significantly, especially ifproduction involves a series of successive operations, as in the preserves industry, whichworks with a variety of different vegetables. Dairy industry sludge, although produced all yearround, tends to decrease in volume during the winter months.

Dairies

Dairies use large amounts of water, mainly for cleaning. Many dairies have built their owneffluent treatment plants and produce large amounts of sludge, which contain high levels of N,P, K and organic matter.


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

56

Preserves producers

The effluent from the preserves producing industries contains high levels of organic matter,potassium, chloride and sodium as a result of washing, peeling and blanching the vegetablesand washing the equipment and the production areas.

Breweries and distilleries

The effluent from the brewing and distilling industry is generally treated in an effluenttreatment plant and is also sometimes anaerobically digested. This is to reduce the amount ofsludge being produced and to generate energy that is used to heat the bioreactor. Thereduction of COD and BOD can be as high as 90%.

Brewery residues contain grain husks and yeast settled out or separated out during themalting and brewing processes. Such waste is mainly reused as animal feed or reprocessedfor use in food or nutrient materials.

Distillery effluent contains little suspended material and is rich in potassium, sodium andsulphur.

Sugar producers

Effluent from the sugar-producing industry contains high levels of suspended materials,comprising soil particles and other organic residues. It is rich in potassium, nitrogen, chlorideand sodium. Sludges produced by the industry consist mainly of waste lime and pulp residues.

Soft drinks waste

In the soft drinks industry, most of the water supplied does not end up in the product itself butis used for rinsing containers, equipment, floor washing, etc. The waste produced by softdrinks manufacturers is therefore low in solids concentrations but may have a high sugarcontent.

4.3.3 Potential problems

Food and drink processing industry effluent is frequently heavily loaded with chloride andsodium stemming from the cleaning agents used. If it is spread in too large a quantity thesecomponents can damage the soil fertility and the crop yields. If applied to soils under thewrong conditions salts can lead to soil structural damage, reduce the availability of soil waterfor plant uptake (induce artificial drought conditions) and can be toxic to plant growth.

Waste may also constitute a vector for the potential transfer of plant pathogenic organisms,particularly potato nematode cysts. These organisms constitute a major pest for potato crops,are endemic in Europe and could be introduced in the effluent discharged from vegetableprocessing factories. Water and soil sediment from potato starch and sugar factories maycarry cysts and spread the pests if discharged onto agricultural land. Beet necrotic yellow veinvirus (BNYVV) is a causal agent of rhyizomania in sugar beet and could also potentially occurin the sludge receiving discharges from infected crops.


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

57

Spreading effluent directly is not a system capable of much development. Effectively, itrequires the establishment of a highly local network linking the company to the agriculturalareas around the production site where spreading can take place. Once this network isestablished, the area for spreading can alter very little.

4.3.4 Variability

Seasonal food processing industries produce effluent whose volume and quality varyconsiderably according to the period of the year. The levels of effluent produced by the dairyindustry undergoes strong fluctuations both on a seasonal basis, depending on the volume ofmilk arriving, and a daily basis (washing periods).

4.3.5 Treatment

Dewatering of food and drink processing industry waste

No system of dewatering is used when spreading the effluent directly.

At companies equipped with effluent treatment plants, sludge is dewatered quite poorlybecause of its high organic matter content and its lack of structuring elements. Dewateringcan be effected using drip tables, centrifuges, band filters or filter presses.

Stabilisation of food and drink processing industry waste

Food processing industry sludge is extremely odorous since it is very rich in poorly stabilisedorganic matter (with a low C/N ratio). It can therefore frequently cause an olfactory nuisanceduring storage and spreading. Those nuisances can be reduced through stabilisation such assignificant liming. Direct spreading is the solution that restricts problems with odour to themaximum since it only requires a very limited storage capacity. Liming or ramp irrigationtechniques can also help to reduce the olfactory nuisance during spreading.

Composting food processing industry sludge is also a possibility. This enables the organicmatter to be stabilised and the olfactory nuisance to be reduced. The compost produced hasan agronomic value higher than that of the original sludge.

Anaerobic digestion is also a very effective method for transforming the organic matter intomethane, a gas with a high calorific value that can be used by the company. This is a processfrequently used by the food processing industry and significantly reduces the organic contentof the effluent, whilst producing a minimum of sludge. Digestion is highly suitable for thetreatment of food processing industry effluent whose production levels and content fluctuatewidely over the year.


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

58


Storage of food and drink processing industry waste

Environmental factors prohibiting the spreading of liquid waste for a few months of the yearcompel the industry to build more storage capacity. The storage of food and drink processingindustry effluent or sludge may create an olfactory nuisance around the storage site becauseof the potentially high levels of poorly stabilised organic matter in the effluent or sludge. Theeffluent, when fresh has a moderate, sweet/sour odour, but can give rise to odour problemsduring decomposition.

The volume of effluent to be stored can vary quite significantly if the factory operates inseasonal stages, as is the case with sugar producers, distilleries and preservesmanufacturers. Part of the effluent needs to be stored so that it can be spread during the mostfavourable period for the crops. In the case of direct spreading, temporary storage in a lagoonon the production site is desirable. In the case of sludge storage systems, sludge is usuallystored in sealed silos, on covered, sealed concrete platforms; this depends on the dry solidscontent.

Agricultural spreading of food and drink processing industry waste

Spreading effluent directly requires the installation of a pumping station, temporary storagefacilities and an underground irrigation network from the industrial site to the spreading sites.Sprayers enable the crops to be irrigated with fertiliser or spreading when no crops are beinggrown, a continuous practice throughout the year depending on the period when the effluent isproduced.

The limiting factor determining the dosage comprises either the hydrous conditions (thequantity of water being contributed to the site) or the fertilising elements being contributed,taking into account the amount of fertilising elements contained in the effluent and theamounts removed by the crops.

The limiting factor for fertiliser irrigation or for spreading effluent or sludge is generally thenitrogen level for the dairy industry, and frequently the potassium level for the other industries.When the element representing the limiting factor presents little risk of being carried awaythrough leaching, the dosage can be calculated to satisfy the requirements for 2 or 3 years.

The dosages of effluent spread vary from 500 to 1500 m3 ha-1 year-1 for the dairy andpreserves industries and from 300 to 1500 m3 ha-1 year-1 for the sugar-producing industry. Thedosages of sludge spread are of the order of 35 to 60 m3 for liquid sludge, 25 tonnes for viscidsludge and 20 tonnes for solid sludge.


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

59

4.4 Pulp And Paper Industry Sludge

The average composition of pulp and paper industry sludge is shown in Table 4.14 below.

Table 4.14 Average composition of mixed pulp and paper industry sludge



C/N ratio 12 200 78

pH 4 9 7



N-TK 0.4 5 1.3

N NH4 0 0.3 0.02

CaO 0.5 20 12

MgO 0.02 6 1

P2O5 0.2 8 0.7

K2O 0.06 0.8 0.2

SO3 1.3


Cadmium - Cd 0 4 1

Chromium -Cr < 1 44 34

Copper - Cu 2 349 61

Mercury - Hg < 0.01 1.4 0.2

Nickel - Ni < 1 32 12

Lead - Pb < 1 83 13

Zinc - Zn 1,3 330 135

Arsenic - As <8


Fluoranthene 0.01 <0.1 <0.05

Benzo (b) fluoranthene <0.005 0.04 <0.02

Benzo (a) pyrene <0.005 0.03 <0.02

Sum of 7 PCB 0.002 <1 <0.5


The information on the quality of pulp and paper sludge reported above mainly comes fromFrance, Benelux, England and Finland.


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

60

4.4.2 Background

The production process used in papermaking depends on the stock used to generate thefibre. The wastewater generated and therefore the characteristics of the sludge produced aredependent on the production processes used.

When virgin wood fibre is used to produce paper, the pulp creates liquid effluent and thesludge mainly contains lignin and cellulose. When waste paper is used in the process, de-inking and bleaching is required and the waste paper will contain colours and chemical andbleaching residues, which will be present in the de-inking sludge. The process of reusing fibrefrom recycled paper produces larger amounts of sludge (1 tonne of sludge for every tonne ofpaper produced). De-inking sludge will also contain high levels of carbon, calcium carbonateand, generally, aluminium silicate.

Within the paper industry, the most economic choice for sludge disposal can determine theprocess used. For example, in France, paper recycling is currently favoured because themethod of disposing of the sludge produced costs less than in other countries. The process ofre-using fibre from recycled paper produces a large amount of sludge. In the Netherlands,sludge disposal systems cost significantly more than in France because of the highenvironmental constraints. A process producing less sludge is therefore favoured, i.e. usingvirgin pulp.

Application of the European IPPC directive will enable the best production processes forpaper, board and pulp in terms of the environment to be determined as well as the besttechniques for handling the waste. The paper industry is a sector of prime importance for thisdirective and it will therefore endeavour to have its preferred method, i.e. spreading, acceptedas the best system for handling its sludge.


Sludge produced by paper industry and recycled to agriculture does not generally come fromthe same source and is often a mixture of primary, biological and possibly de-inking sludge.

Paper sludge contains very high levels of dry solids because it is rich in fibres and thereforedehydrates quite easily. All pulp and paper sludge comprises a mixture of cellulose fibre (40 to60% of dry solids), printing inks and mineral components (40 to 60% dry solids: kaolin, talc,and calcium carbonate). Paper sludge is largely carbon (around 30 % C in ds) and mineralmatter (clay and calcium carbonate (5 to 25 % in ds)) with a high C/N ratio (50-200). It has lowlevels of fertilising elements and a low metal content.

In the case of de-inking sludge, the metal content of the ink has been significantly decreasedover the past 15 years and nowadays contains fewer heavy metals, in order to comply withthe food regulations. De-inking sludge therefore also contains few heavy metals. Dependingon the nature of the de-inking process, the sludge contains CaCO3, which can be up to onefifth as effective as ground limestone.

Due to the high concentration of organic carbon in the sludge, application contributessignificantly to the organic matter content of the soil, this stimulates soil microbial activity andthus increases breaking down soil OM. As the sludge contains little nitrogen, soil nitrogen isaccumulated by microbes for use in growth and reproduction, thus binding N into the OM. Theleaching of nitrates over the winter months will therefore be reduced. Mineralisation of the


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

61

organic compounds then accelerates by virtue of the development of a larger microbial sphereof activity, and N is released at a slow rate into the soil pool.

The high levels of CaCO3 in paper industry sludge afford it the characteristics of a calcicamendment, enabling the addition of lime to be avoided for acidic soils.


The high C/N ratio of paper sludge can cause immobilisation of soil N when it is incorporatedinto the soil and hence crop nitrogen deficiency. The losses in yield can be minimised in thefirst year by applying a dressing of N fertiliser above the normal N requirement of the crop.There is little or no immobilisation of N in the second year after application. This has to beapply appropriately to avoid N leaching.

The potential for other contaminants arising in waste paper sludge depends on the nature ofthe manufacturing process and the raw matter used. De-inking sludge contains the ink andcolour residues deriving from the metal constituents. In the case of newsprint, which is themost common source of recycled waste paper, the sludge can contain on average 150mgzinc/kg of dry solids.

4.4.5 Variability

The composition of the sludge being spread depends on the origins of the mixed sludge(primary, biological and de-inking sludge) and the papermaking process used (heavy metalcontent of the primary materials, processes used: pulp bleaching method and type of de-inking process, etc.). No seasonal variations are recorded on the same site in terms of thecomposition of the paper industry waste.

4.4.6 Treatment

Physical behaviour of pulp and paper waste:

Paper industry waste, whether of primary, biological or de-inking origin, is of the viscid to solidtype. The dry solids content can vary from 20 to 60% depending on the level of dewatering. Itstacks well and is easy to utilize.

Compost from this sludge is, a dry product containing more than 50% dry solids.

Dewatering of pulp and paper waste

Dewatering enables the volume of sludge to be reduced. Dehydration can be effected by avariety of processes, some of which can be used in complementary fashion: centrifuge, bandfilter, filter press, screw press. De-inking or mixed sludge tends to be drier than primary andbiological sludge. Sludge containing a high level of lignin is easier to dehydrate than othertypes of sludge.


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

62

Stabilisation of pulp and paper waste

Paper industry sludge contains high levels of mineral material and low levels of changeableorganic matter because of its very high C/N ratio. More often than not, there is no provision forstabilising the organic matter at the production sites. Paper industry sludge, therefore,constitutes little of an olfactory nuisance.

Additional stabilisation of paper industry sludge is conceivable using composting and canresult in a further reduction in the volume, facilitating storage, but the low levels of organicmatter and the high C/N ratio hinder composting such sludge. Furthermore, the compostproduced from paper industry sludge is not of any higher benefit than the uncompostedsludge, although it can eliminated some problems with smells during storage and reduce thevisual impact of paper industry sludge when it is spread.

Composting of this sludge is therefore practised using a good structuring medium, enablingthe mixture to be correctly aerated, and a nitrogen-rich component (animal farming effluent ordomestic waste) to compensate for the low level of nitrogen in the sludge. If its physicalbehaviour so permits, paper industry sludge can therefore serve as an ancillary product forcomposting with other waste that is rich in nitrogen.


Storage of pulp and paper waste

Storage capacity at a site must be sufficient to enable the paper industry to store the sludgeduring periods when it cannot be spread on land. This means that, for most mills, there needsto be sufficient storage capacity to cover about six months of sludge production.

Storage can take place at the production site on suitably designed, large, waterproofedconcrete platforms, or on composting platforms when the sludge is to be transformed intocompost. Storage on part of the area to be spread may be permitted, depending on the localregulations, but this must only be a temporary measure because of the visual and olfactorynuisance caused.

Agricultural spreading of pulp and paper sludge

The rate of application of paper mill sludge on agricultural land can vary from 15 to 30 t/ha.Given its low fertilising elements content, the rate-determing factors are the CaCO3 content orthe level of nitrogen deficiency that would result from spreading sludge with a very high C/Nratio. In practice, the heavy metal content never represents a limiting factor.


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

63

4.5 Tannery sludge

Typical analysis data for tannery waste from plans not using chromium is shown below inTable 4.15 below.

Table 4.15 Tannery sludge



C/N ratio

pH 6.7 7.2 6.9



N-TK 3 6 5

N-NH4

P2O50.4 0.9 0.6

K2O 0.1 0.9 0.6

CaO 13 21 16

MgO 0.3 0.5 0.4

SO3


Cadmium - Cd 0.15 0.7 0.17

Chromium -Cr 92 162 128

Copper - Cu 8 13 10

Mercury - Hg 0.03 0.04 0.03

Nickel - Ni 1.1 2 1.5

Lead - Pb 2 5 4

Zinc - Zn 20 31 27

Arsenic - As


PAH

Sum of 7 PCB

Limitations of data

The information on quality of wastes from leather and tannery industries reported above arecoming mainly from Belgium, France and UK.


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

64

4.5.2 Background

The raw material is mammalian skin, which is derived principally from animals which arebutchered for the food industry.

The tannery operations consist of transforming the raw hide, a highly putrescible material, intoleather, a stable product which can be conserved indefinitely and which has a significantcommercial value. These operations follow a sequence of organised chemical reactions (usingreactive products) and mechanical processes using specialised machinery. Among these,tanning is the fundamental stage that confers to leather its stability and essentialcharacteristics.

The leather manufacturing activity generates liquid and solid wastes. The solid wastes fromtanneries consist of hairs, which can be composted if they are pre-degraded in the preparationof hides. The second waste comes from the tanning operation in itself, which is the mostimportant step in the production of leather and is carried out in an aqueous environment withwater in rotating drums. During this operation, collagen, the principal protein of the skin, will fixthe tanning agents to their reactive sites, thus stopping the putrefaction phenomenon.

In order to be transformed into a commercial product, leather needs to be dried with colouringagents, then fat liquored with the natural or synthetic fats in order to render the productflexible.

The products that are capable of being fixed to skin are many and varied but they can beclassified into three groups:

• Mineral tannins (mostly chromium). Quick, simple and very cost effective, that means 70%of used tannins. But the chromium has a very high impact on the environment.

• Vegetable type tannins (mimosa, chestnut, quebracho). 20% of used tannins. Liquidsludge from vegetable tannins has no impact on the environment.

• Other organic tannins (formaldehyde, synthetic tannins, fish oil,…)


Wastewater from degreasing and tanning operations are rich in soluble proteins that can betreated by various aerobic biological treatment technologies. Purified sludge from tanneriesand tanning plants are rich in nitrogen-bearing material (total nitrogen 2 to 5% of the drysolids) and are therefore likely to be of interest to farmers as a high nitrogen fertiliser.

Other waste from the tanning process, like hairs, can be composted.


Only sludge from tannery industry using vegetable tannins can be recycled to land. Thespreading of tannery sludge coming from a process using mineral tannins is often blockedbecause of its heavy metal content. The chromium is particularly toxic for the environment andthe regulations set strict tolerance levels both in sludge and in the soil.


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

65

The low C/N ratio of liquid sludge from the tannery industry provides quantities of nitrogen witha high availability. So it’s strongly recommended apply a green manure just after thespreading to capture the nitrogen.

The required storage capacity for waste can be high, this takes up space on the industrial site,can incur extra costs and can produce odour nuisances around storage area because offermentable matter into the sludge (proteins).

4.5.5 Variability

Sludges from tanneries can vary considerably according to the processing chemicals used.Each waste should be evaluated for major nutrients, pH and solids, BOD, Electricalconductivity and sodium and potentially toxic elements, before a land application program isinitiated.

4.5.6 Treatment

To reduce the storage space required and transportation costs, most tannery sludges aredewatered. Composting of dewatered sludge can further reduce storage, odour problems andimprove the C/N ratio.

Agricultural fertiliser can be produced from tannery sludges by adding lime to the wastewaterto make it alkaline, then adding ferrous or aluminium sulfate to coagulate it. The mixture isdewatered, leaving a sludge containing about 20% dry matter. The sludge can be fermentedand composted before the application to cropland.

Successful experiments in France have been conducted on purified sludge mixed withuntanned waste into a ratio of 82%:18%. 450 m3/week of biogas, containing 74% methane tofeed a digester, have been obtained with mixtures of 45-50 g l-1 of dry solids. This representsthree-quarters of the organic load in the waste being eliminated in the form of energy.

Recycling to energy in in-house incineration is selected wherever technically and economicallyfeasible. However, such methods of recycling require control of the chromium levels in thesludge to enable the ash to be landfilled.


In order to attract the farmer on the basis of nitrogen fertilisation, the spreading quantity usedis quite high (50-80 m3/ha). Tannery sludge can be applied for cereal production followed bysugar beet. Therefore, spreading should be carried out just after the crop harvesting times inthe summer, thus avoiding problems of run-off and soil compaction.

To respect this spreading period and give a higher flexibility to the producer, the liquid wastewould be stored in a water-tight settling sump.

After the spreading it is good practise to sow a cash crop (green cover), a short time after theharvest, to reduce the risk of nitrate leaching. A direct injection application is recommended toreduce gaseous emissions and odours.


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

66

4.6 Textile waste

There are two examples of textile waste which are spread on land in the EU; textileprocessing sludge and wool scourers waste. Typical quality data for these wastes are shownin Tables 4.16 and 4.17 below.

Table 4.16 Textile processing sludge


Dry solids (%) 0.7 44 10

C/N ratio 7 12.5 8

pH 5 13 7



N-TK 2.7 17 3.1

N-NH4 0.06 16 0.5

P2O5 1.1 5.4 1.5

K2O 0.2 1.8 0.8

CaO 0.7 43 7

MgO 0.3 2.4 0.3

Na2O 3.6

Oligo elements and sulphur (mg kg-1 DS)

Sulphur - SO3 0.1 2.4 1.6


Cadmium - Cd 0.15 1.2 0.5

Chromium -Cr <1 430 40

Copper - Cu 0.5 892 131

Mercury - Hg <0.01 3.1 0.4

Nickel - Ni <1 31 8

Lead - Pb <1 22 7

Selenium - Se 1.8 5.4 4.6

Zinc - Zn 1.4 1249 188


Fluoranthene 0.06

Benzo (b) fluoranthene 0.05

Benzo (a) pyrene 0.02

Sum of 7 PCB 0.01


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

67

Table 4.17 Wool scourers waste


Dry solids (% RP) 7.7 73 55

C/N ratio 36 41 38

pH 2.8 8.4 6.8



N-TK 0.2 1.4 0.3

P2O5 0.2 0.9 0.3

K2O 0.06 7.8 4

CaO 0.8 0.8 0.8

MgO 0.02 0.3 0.3

Na2O 3.1 3.9 3.5


Cadmium - Cd <0.25 0.7 0.5


Copper - Cu 1.7 26 13

Mercury - Hg <0.01 0.1 0.06

Nickel - Ni 0.5 9 7

Lead - Pb 1.3 11 7

Zinc - Zn 12 95 62

Selenium - Se 8


Fluoranthene < 0.01 0.04

Benzo (b) fluoranthene < 0.01 < 0.01

Benzo (a) pyrene < 0.01 0.01

Sum of 7 PCB < 0.05 < 0.05


The information regarding the quality of textile waste reported above mainly comes fromFrance, Italy and the United Kingdom.


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

68

4.6.2 Background

Textile industries use large volumes of water because textile products have to undergo anumber of successive treatments: for example, pre-washing, bleaching, pre-treatment, dying,soaping, washing, initial dressing, second dressing, washing, rinsing, etc. Water consumptionis rarely less than 100 m3 per tonne of treated product and can exceed 300 m3 per tonne forthe wool industry.

The quality of the effluent produced by the textile processing industry depends on the type offibres, the dyeing and printing processes and the products being used. The effluent is highlycoloured and has a COD that is difficult to break down both chemically and biologically.

Some textile units have installed on-site effluent treatment plants. These generally usetraditional biological processing procedures, possibly preceded by physical-chemical pre-treatment.


Sludge is produced from the treatment of textile industry effluent. The sludge’s characteristicsdepend on the type of treatment applied to the liquid waste, physical-chemical (coagulation-flocculation) or/and biological and the quality of the original effluent. It would appear thattraditional biological treatments have proved quite effective as regards effluent from dyeingprocesses. The collection water contains small amounts of degradation products resultingfrom the breaking down of bleaching agents and dyestuffs.

Textile waste contains little organic matter and very few elements beneficial to plant growth.The nitrogen content is average and the waste contains only low levels of phosphorus andpotassium. The waste has a low C:N ratio, therefore the organic matter breaks down rapidly.Such waste has therefore only a low agronomic value that can be augmented by liming orcomposting with an additional carbonaceous structuring medium.

Waste from the wool industry has a clearly greater agronomic value (potassium, magnesium)but contains significant fatty matter in the concentrates from washing the wool, which are notrecyclable as they stand. The dust from the wool constitutes dry waste with a C/N ratio ofaround 6. It is rich in potassium and nitrogen.

Wool-washing/wool-combing industry by-products characteristically contain few heavy metals.

Wool processing by-products can also contain organic compounds from treating fleeces withpesticides. When the wool is washed, these are transferred to the washing water and end upin the sludge. Degraded versions of these pesticides can therefore be found in the sludge.Pesticides are used to treat sheep such as sheep dip or to treat the wool. If the wool isexported from countries outside the Union with different pesticide authorisation, someunauthorised products can be found in the sludge.


Textile processing industry sludge is of low agronomic value and can contain higher levels ofheavy metals than other industrial sludge being recycled to agriculture. Levels of chromiumare generally higher than those found in domestic sewage sludge. This is due to the use ofmetalliferous dyestuffs, however, levels still remain below the limits established for agricultural


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

69

recycling. Other dyestuffs, that do not contain heavy metals, can be substituted to producethese shades.

Furthermore, the methods used for bleaching the fabric during the finishing process can leadto concentrations of organo-halogenated compounds in the sludge. Oxidisation techniques(ozonation, UV radiation) are currently being experimented with to destroy some of the AOXpresent in the sludge.

The concentrates from washing the wool contain high levels of fatty matter and cannot berecycled to agriculture as they stand. They must be mixed with bark to make them pelletisableand so that they no longer cling to the handling equipment. An potassium based organicmedium can be created by this type of mixture. This breaks down slowly within the soil byutilisation of soil nitrogen (C/N = 30) and is slightly basic. This material is rich in potassium,magnesium and sodium.

The wool dust produced by wool combing operations can present problems with self-propagation when recycled to agriculture. The dust may, in fact, contain plant seeds that thencolonise the area being spread.

4.6.5 Variability

Textile industry waste varies in composition depending on the treatment process (biological,physical-chemical or both), the dyestuffs, the detergents, the dampening and bleachingagents and the auxiliary products being used.

4.6.6 Treatment

Textile waste dehydration

Small textile production units will favour liquid sludge involving lesser investment indewatering equipment (drip tables), whereas larger sites will install band filters or a centrifugeto reduce the quantities of sludge to be stored. The investment in dewatering equipment isoften insufficient to obtain correctly dewatered sludge. There are very few filter presses to befound in the textile industry.

Filter pressing can dewater most of the sludge produced by biological treatments relativelyeasily. The problem of sludge dewatering has restricted the use of physical-chemical wastewater treatment methods, however effective, since such treatment produce a colloidal sludgethat is particularly difficult to dewater.

Textile waste stabilisation

In order to stabilise and reduce the olfactory nuisance created during its storage and when it isspread, sludge containing organic matter requires stabilisation treatment, involving theaddition of lime. The addition of lime increases the sludge's agronomic value.

Stabilisation by composting such sludge can also present a solution to stabilising the organicmatter and produces compost with a significantly higher agronomic value than the originalsludge.


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

70


Physical behaviour of textile waste

Textile industry waste comprises either textile processing industry sludge or wool industrywaste. Sludge from process industry may be either in liquid or viscid form, depending on thelevel of dewatering. Wool waste is either in the form of very fatty, viscid sludge (concentratesfrom washing the wool), which cannot be recycled directly to agriculture, since it is veryglutinous, or in the form of dry waste (wool dust).

Storage of textile waste

Textile processing industry sludge does not stack very well since it contains no fibres and isnot always sufficiently dewatered. Liquid sludge is stored in sealed silos and viscid sludge onsealed concrete platforms, which may be covered. Waste from the wool industry is stored oncovered platforms.

Agricultural spreading of textile waste

The nitrogen content of the sludge is the limiting factor for its use in agriculture. The normalrates of spreading are 40 to 60 m3 for liquid sludge and 20 to 30 tonnes for viscid sludge.

The limiting factor for the spreading of potassium based organic amendments is thepotassium content. Normal rates are 10 to 15 tonnes per hectare.

For wool dust, the normal rate is around 10 tonnes per hectare.

4.6.8 Conclusion

Currently in most regions, agricultural spreading is favoured over landfill or incineration, exceptin certain factories producing large amounts of waste, where incinerators may be profitable. Toincrease savings, some factories are attempting to reduce their water consumption. Manywork with a recirculating system, recovering and purifying the water as it leaves the process.

To improve the quality of the sludge, attempts are now being made to replace the chemicalproducts, such as chromium and copper salts. Those removed are considered to be the mostpolluting, difficult to eliminate, or of a toxic nature in the outflow from biological purificationplants. They are replaced with products with a lower environmental impact on the waterquality, or that are more readily biodegradable.

The European IPPC directive of 1997 requires the textile industry to select the least pollutingprocesses in terms of the environment. Each sector must adopt these before 2007. The choicefrom the various processes available is made according to effectiveness, profitability and thelevel of risk of environmental pollution produced, the aim being to produce less waste and abetter quality of waste.


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

71

4.7 Decarbonation Sludge

Quality data for decarbonation sludge is shown in Table 4.18 below.

Table 4.18 Quality data for decarbonabiton sludge


Dry solids (%) 55 70 61

C/N ratio

pH 8.3 10.5 8.9


Organic matter 0 6 1.2

N-TK 0 0.7 0.2

N-NH4

P2O5 0.01 1.6 0.5

K2O 0 0.6 0.1

CaO 29 54 42

MgO 0.5 1.4 1

Na2O

Oligo elements and sulphur (mg kg-1 DS)

Sulphur - SO3


Cadmium - Cd 0.07 0.9 0.2


Copper - Cu 0.6 20 9

Mercury - Hg 0.01 0.16 0.06

Nickel - Ni 0.8 32 10

Lead - Pb 0.8 36 16

Selenium - Se

Zinc - Zn 9 110 51

Organic compounds (ppm = mg/kg DS)

PAH

Sum of 7 PCB


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

72

Limitations of data

The information on quality of wastes from decarbonation sludge from reported above aremainly come from Belgium.

4.7.1 Background

In many power stations, boilers using hot water need a conditioning system to treat cubicmeters of water coming from river, ground water or spring.

The soluble residues (calcium and magnesium bicarbonates) present in water make it hard,which affects the metal pipes and the boiler durability.

To reduce or remove hardness in water, a process of chemical precipitation is used: “limesoftening”. The precipitation causes soluble salts to become insoluble salts, so they can beremoved by sequential sedimentation. The process is called lime softening, as lime ispredominately used, it maintains the pH value in the ideal range for the precipitation ofdecarbonation sludge. There are different processes to precipitate soluble salts from water.

The waste from this treatment process is therefore sludge primarily composed of calciumcarbonate (CaC03). A dewatering system is required to dry the sludge.


The only significant elements contained in the by-product are calcium and magnesium. Theagronomic value of the by-product is based on the quantity of calcium and magnesium in theby-product and the benefit of calcium to the soil and plants used in agricultural cropproduction.

In the soil the pH is a very important factor for optimal plant development and generalagricultural crop production. Soil pH is influenced by many factors including soil type, soilstructure, rainfall and agricultural production system. The pH of the soil will naturally tend tofall due to rainfall and the removal of elements by crop production and harvesting. Thereforethere is an essential requirement to keep the pH of soils as it will naturally tend to decrease.

The pH level of the soil can only be increased by the addition of basic elements such ascalcium and magnesium. This is obtained by the regular application of basic elements to thesoil as liming materials.

There are two important factors in evaluating a lime product:

1. The Total Neutralising Value (T.N.V.)

The total neutralising value of a lime product is determined by comparing the neutralisingvalue of the product to the total neutralising value of pure calcium carbonate CaCO3. Theneutralising value of pure calcium carbonate is assigned the value of 100.

In the analysis carried out, the total neutralising value of the decarbonation sludge cakes at60% dry matter content was 30% T.N.V. The ground limestone (CaC03) is the commonestform of lime sold and is T.N.V. is 90% The spreading rate is approximately 10 tonnes perhectare of decarbonation sludge (3000 T.N.V.) per 3 years.


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

73

2. The fineness

There is a standard of fineness for licensed ground limestone products (CaC03) to guaranteethe good efficacy of the T.N.V.

The standard for licensed ground limestone products is a Total Neutralising Value of greaterthan 90% and a fineness of 100 % through a 35 mm sieve and 35 % through a 0.15 mmsieve.

The fineness of the product and the uniformity of the fineness of the product has a directimpact on the ability to spread the product evenly over the ground and guarantee his solubility.A finer material will react more quickly with the soil than a product, which has large clumps orparticle sizes.


The process used to precipitate soluble salts influences the size of carbonate particles and thereactivity of this lime with the soil. In some installations, the precipitation is realised on a sandysubstrata and gives small granulates of carbonate which have no reactivity (very low) with thesoil.

The origin of water used in the boiler has an influence on the sludge quality, so water pumpedfrom canal or river in industrial zone has sometime problems with hydrocarbons and heavymetal residues (see the dredged silt). If the origin is a ground water there is generally noproblem.

The dry matter is highly influenced by the dewatering process. A mechanical dewateringsystem like a belt press produces calcium cake at approximately 55-60 % dry solids contentwith a good stability on land. However with other systems, a less dry matter content (15-20%)can produce problems for the storage.

Lime application normally takes place after soil analysis and it is possible to adjust thespreading rate according to the lime application rate recommendations. The recycling of alime product has an agronomic benefit in regions with acid or neutral soil. Responses to limeon higher pH soil would give diminishing returns.

4.7.4 Variability

The process and the hardness of water are stable, but the quality of the dewatering operationcan influence the dry matter and in the same time the neutralisation capacity. (fresh weight).

4.7.5 Treatment

Dewatering treatment is required to facilitate transportation and spreading of the waste.


The spreading rate depends on the dry matter and the neutralisation capacity (from 8 to25 t ha-1).


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

74

Storage is better facilitated when sludge is dewatered to approximately 55-60% dry solidscontent.

4.8 Sludge from the production of drinking water

ELEMENTS Alum sludge Ferric sludge

DS (%) 0.1 - 30 0.1 – 30

C/N ratio

pH 5.5 – 7.5 7.3 – 9.3


Organic matter <15%

N 0.7 0.4

P205 0.8 0.8

K20 Negligible

Ca0 + +

S + +

Heavy metals (% DS)

Aluminium - Al 20 5

Iron - Fe 3 10

Heavy metals + +

Pathogens

Pathogens + +


The data are ‘typical’ values for the coagulant sludges only.

4.8.2 Background

Waterworks sludge is the residue arising from the treatment of raw water to produce drinkingwater. The sludge is composed of the impurities removed and precipitated from the watertogether with the residues of any treatment chemical used.

Waterworks sludge can be broadly classified either as coagulant, natural, groundwater orsoftening sludge. The most common process for surface water treatment is chemicalcoagulation and rapid gravity filtration which produces aluminium or ferric sludge according towhether Al or Fe salts were used as the coagulant chemical.


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

75


The application of waterworks sludge to agricultural or other land is potentially a majordisposal route which has not been fully exploited because the product has no obviousattributes which could be associated with agricultural benefit or ecological improvement. Theremay be benefit in some circumstances from its content of sulphur, trace elements and smallamount of organic matter. Benefits resulting from the application to land of coagulant sludgesare not easily demonstrated. Benefit can be more easily demonstrated for softening sludgesproduced as a result of the softening of hard waters. Softening sludges contain valuableamounts of calcium and can be used for liming of agricultural land. Natural sludge, or slowsand sludge, results from the washing of slow sand filters and may contain enough organicmatter, with organically bound plant nutrients, to be of agricultural value.


There are some concerns about potential adverse effects on plant growth, concentrations ofheavy metals and aluminium, and possible contamination of surface or groundwaters. Theaccumulation of aluminium or iron due to extended applications of sludge would not beexpected to cause problems in most circumstances especially if the soil pH value is keptabove 6.0. Nevertheless, it is understood that agricultural advisors in Scotland have concernsthat aluminium-rich waterworks sludge applied to acid soils could have a deleterious effect onthe growth of barley in particular if the soil pH falls below pH 5.5. Build up of iron in the topsoilof pasture land following surface applications of iron-rich waterworks sludge could have adeleterious effect on the copper metabolism of grazing animals, especially sheep. It isreported that aluminium and iron hydroxides in coagulant sludges can adsorb solublephosphorus and reduce its availability to plants, adversely affecting growth. However, co-application with sewage sludge or the addition of supplemental phosphorus to the soil wouldeliminate or reduce this effect, if necessary. It is possible that waterworks sludges containpathogens, such as Cryptosporidium, removed from the raw water at the waterworks.

4.8.5 Variability

Quality will vary according to the type of waterworks sludge and the particular waterworksproducing it. Low grade coagulant chemicals may be contaminated with heavy metals. Whilethe treatment process at the waterworks remains constant, including the source of coagulantchemicals, then the quality of the waterworks sludge produced would be expected to remaincomparatively constant.

4.8.6 Treatment

Coagulant sludges are likely to be supplied as a cake of about 25-40% dry solids. Alternativelythese sludge may be supplied as a slurry of about 10%ds.

A practical option for disposal may be for the waterworks to divert its sludge to the foul seweras a licensed discharge in which case it will become an integral part of the sewage sludgeafter treatment at the sewage works, and can be applied to land under the ‘sludge recycling toland’ Directive 86/278/EEC.


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

76


Waterworks sludge of the coagulant type is likely to have no more than a ‘neutral ‘ effect onthe land as opposed to bringing positive agricultural benefit. Soil pH should be kept at 6.0 orabove and rate of application limited to about 10 tonne ds ha-1 yr-1 . Other products, such assoftening sludge, may have a useful content of lime and organic matter which can form thebasis for calculating a suitable rate of application to the land.

The application of waterworks sludge to forest lands has been investigated in severalcountries. In one US study, liquid alum sludge was applied to deciduous and coniferousforested land. One year after the initial application, it was concluded that the alum sludge hadno adverse effects on tree growth or nutrient uptake in the short term. However, because ofthe slow growth rate of trees, measurements would need to continue for many years beforeconclusions regarding long-term effects could be drawn.

Land reclamation could also be a significant disposal route for waterworks sludge, subject toacceptance by the relevant regulatory authorities. Potential benefits of using waterworkssludge include its reported pH buffering capacity, soil conditioning properties and capacity toadsorb heavy metals.


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

77

4.9 Dredgings from Waterways

Typical quality of dredgings from waterways is shown in Table 4.19.

Table 4.19 Dredgings from waterways



C/N ratio

pH 5.4 7.6 6.7



N-TK Variable

N-NH4

P2O5 0.4 5.6 1.1

K2O Likely to be

CaO Variable

MgO

Na2O


Cadmium - Cd 0 21 2.2

Chromium -Cr 25 4010 160

Copper - Cu 26 1360 137

Mercury - Hg 0.1 1570 83

Nickel - Ni 34 204 79

Lead - Pb 22 8300 410

Zinc - Zn 154 6700 960

Selenium - Se

Sulphides 0 6330 1810

Cyanides 0 2.6 0.6


PAH 0 203 16

Sum of 7 PCB

Phenols 2.1 292 23.4


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

78


The data are taken from samples of dredgings collected along 100km length of canal in theUK. The data illustrate that dredgings from the same waterway can be very variable accordingto sampling location and that dredgings can be heavily contaminated with both inorganic andorganic micro-pollutants.

4.9.1 Background

Sediment has to be dredged periodically from the beds of canals, rivers and estuaries tomaintain navigability and water quality. Sediments may have built up over many years and insome cases the canals pass through industrial areas. Most contaminants typical of industrialactivities can be found in these sediments. The dredgings are usually deposited into an areanear to the waterway and left to dewater, after which the solids, if suitable, can be used as soilmaking material on surrounding land. Sediments which are unsuitable for landspreadingowing to contamination would be disposed of to landfill. Modern restrictions on discharges ofcontaminants to waterways should ensure that sediment quality is usually compatible withlandspreading in future.


Dredgings can supply phosphate-rich soil building material in the form of minerals and organicmatter including some bound nitrogen. Sandy material, low in organic matter and fineparticulates, has potential value for land levelling purposes.


Many inland waterways, canals in particular, run through urban and industrial areas andsediments may have become polluted with various contaminants following industrial and otherdischarges to the waterway made before these were adequately regulated. The Table aboveindicates the levels of some contaminants that may be found in dredgings. Tributyltin residuesmay be present in dredgings from boating centres. The mud of dredgings, which contains ahigh proportion of silts and clays, is highly adsorptive of bacteria and viruses as well aschemical contaminants. Therefore pathogens may be present on a local basis in dredgingsdownstream of discharges from sewage works, storm sewage overflows, farms and certainindustrial premises such as compounders of organic fertilisers, abattoirs and tanneries.Dredgings rich in fine particulates may cause drainage problems after application and wouldbe best incorporated into a coarse textured, sandy soil. Salinity must be considered in thecase of estuarine dredgings. Dredgings are likely to contain items of undegraded plastic litterand scrap metal which are unsightly, potentially hazardous to farm animals and can impedecultivation of the soil.

4.9.4 Variability

As the table above exemplifies, dredgings are likely to vary in quality even along the samestretch of waterway. This is likely to be linked to the passage of the waterway through urbanand industrial areas so dredgings from stretches through rural catchments should be moreconsistent in quality and largely free of contaminants.


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

79

4.9.5 Treatment

Dredgings are likely to be anaerobic and smelly when first recovered and will probably neededto be stacked and periodically turned (aerated) before landspreading. Such a period ofweathering and exposure to rainfall will remove the salinity from estuarine dredgings.Screening may be necessary if the dredgings contain plastic and scrap metal litter items.


Bankside storage is the usual practice. In view of their composition, it is suggested thatdredgings are applied to the land in accordance with the ‘sewage sludge recycling’ Directive86/278/EEC. Higher applications of clean, sandy dredgings may be justified for soil building orland levelling operations.


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

80

4.10 Waste lime from cement manufacture or gas processing

4.10.1 Quality Data

Some data from operational analysis of waste lime from cement manufacture or gasprocessing is shown below in Table 4.20.

Table 4.20 Waste Lime



C/N ratio

pH 6.5 12.5

BOD (mg l-1) 95 2000 1224


Organic matter

N-TK 0 0.7

N- NH4 0 0.4 0.06

P2O5 0 0.4 0.3

K2O 0 4.7 0.7

Mg 0 5 1

Na2O


Cadmium – Cd 0.1 8

Chromium –Cr 0.5 31

Copper – Cu 0.3 46

Mercury – Hg 0 3.5

Nickel – Ni 0.1 35

Lead – Pb 0 1000

Zinc – Zn 0.2 153


PAH

Sum of 7 PCB


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

81


Data was only available from the UK and Belgium.

4.10.2 Background

The two biggest producers of waste lime are cement manufacture and gas processing,although the salt industry produces significant quantities of waste lime and gypsum. Thesewastes, by virtue of their chemical nature and origin are inherently pathogen-free. Lime andlime sludges have pH values of 10-12+ and are therefore self-disinfecting, as long as this highpH value is maintained.

The waste material from cement manufacture consists of cement kiln dust, which is a mixtureof calcium carbonate and calcium oxide. Waste lime is produced from the production ofacetylene gas.


The benefit of cement kiln dust is derived from its liming value. Neutralising Values can varydepending on the moisture content of the material, but are usually in the range 20-40%. Somewastes may also contain moderate amounts of potash, but as the material is traditionallyapplied to the land at low rates the benefit from potash is negligible.

Lime waste from gas processing consists of a large percentage of calcium hydroxide andtherefore also has a high neutralising value. Other nutrients, and indeed contaminants, maybe present in varying amounts, and these may have an agronomic effect, but this depends toa large degree on the nature of the production process. Trials have shown that this materialcan compare favourably with calcium carbonate (Munoz et al. 1994).


Cement kiln dusts usually contain residues from the combustion of materials used to generatethe high temperature requirements of the process. Some manufacturers have recently startedusing waste organic solvents as sources of fuel for these processes and therefore organicresidues may occur in kiln dusts. Over-liming should be avoided as trace element deficienciescan be induced when soils are limed above their optimum for specific crops.

The production of acetylene gas involves reaction of calcium carbide with water, producinglime as a by-product. Other constituents are also produced, e.g. thiourea, for which theconsequences of land application may be uncertain. Properly qualified advice should be takenbefore land application is undertaken.

4.10.5 Variability

Quality of the wastes from these processes will depend upon the actual systems and methodsof production used. It is important that products for landspreading should be accompanied bya full analysis of potentially toxic elements including Cu, Ni, Zn, Cd, Cr, Hg, Pb, B, As, Se, Moand Fe. Assurance should be given by the waste producer, based on analysis, that theproduct is free from organic contaminants.


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

82

4.10.6 Treatment

The nature of these wastes is such that further treatment would be unlikely to improve thequality of the waste for landspreading purposes.

4.10.7 Application / Storage

The rate of application of these wastes should be based on the neutralising value of the wasteand the lime requirement of the receiving soil. The pH of the soil should be determined prior tolandspreading, because the agricultural benefit will not be achieved if the land has no limerequirements. All wastes should be evaluated for potentially toxic elements and organiccontaminants prior to landspreading.

The wastes are inherently stable so storage in dry conditions should not affect their suitabilityfor landspreading.


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

83

4.11 Waste Gypsum

Table 4.21 Waste gypsum


Dry solids (%) 8.7 78 48

C/N ratio

pH 5.5 12.4 9.4

BOD (mg l-1)


Organic matter

N-TK 0 28 2.3

N-NH4

P2O5 0 2.2 0.4

K2O 0 2.0 0.4

CaO High

SO3 High


Cadmium – Cd 0.1 5.0 1.4

Chromium –Cr 1.6 51 466

Copper – Cu 1.2 32 12

Mercury – Hg

Nickel – Ni 1.0 144 33

Lead – Pb 1.3 53 404

Zinc – Zn 2.4 1075 124


PAH

Sum of 7 PCB


Analytical data from 4 – 12 samples from UK. As with much analysis of this kind the meanconcentrations of trace metals reported are skewed to high values and concentrations likely tobe encountered are probably medians and nearer to the minimum values in the Table above.


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

84

4.11.1 Background

Mined gypsum is a widely occurring mineral that has been used for many years in agricultureas a soil conditioner for clay and saline soils and as a source of the plant nutrients, calciumand sulphur.

Industrial gypsum is derived as a by-product from the manufacture of phosphoric acid(phosphogypsum), from the capture of sulphur dioxide in the flue gases of fossil-fuel poweredgenerators (flue gas desulphurisation gypsum), from the neutralisation of sulphuric acid inmany chemical processing industries (waste acid neutralisation gypsum) and from saltextraction.

Gypsum is a mineral (hydrated calcium sulphate), used for preparing plaster and plaster-based building materials. As in the production of lime, heat is used in preparing plaster, whichdisinfects the product.


Acid neutralisation gypsum

Large volumes of waste sulphuric acid are produced from a wide range of industrialprocesses. The acid is used as an extractant for a variety of chemical compounds, butespecially for the extraction of mineral ores. Consequently, the acid contains many differentcontaminants derived from the primary raw materials. The contaminants can be carried overin the neutralisation process and incorporated into the gypsum produced.

The use of gypsum as a soil conditioner is well known. One application is on saline sodicsoils, especially those affected by flooding from sea water, where the gypsum is used torestore soil structure. Use of gypsum is also beneficial in less extreme cases, where poorlystructured clays can be improved in the long term by additions of gypsum at rates in excess of5 t ha-1. There is little, if any, structural benefit from adding gypsum to very light soils such assands and loamy sands.

Gypsum also contains very large quantities of sulphur, which can in theory be as high as 20%depending on the purity of the product. With the reduction in atmospheric depositions ofsulphur in acid rain, many agricultural soils are becoming sulphur deficient and sulphur-containing fertilisers are increasingly being used. In recent years, applications of gypsum havesometimes produced unexpected improvements in crop yields which may have resulted fromcorrection of sulphur deficiency not previously diagnosed. The presence of other plantnutrients depends on the process from which the material is derived, but such gypsum wastescan contain quantities of phosphate which also have an agronomic value.

Flue Gas Desulphurisation gypsum

The soil conditioning benefits gained from FGD gypsum are identical to other sources of highpurity gypsum, but gypsum from this source will not usually contain other beneficial nutrients.


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

85


Due to the wide range of different industries, it is not possible to give a detailed description ofpotential contaminants that may occur in gypsum. However, contamination from metals isvery common, as the strong acids used in the mineral based industries will lead to theextraction of metals. Properly qualified advice should be sought before these materials areconsidered as suitable for landspreading.

FGD gypsum is produced primarily to remove sulphur dioxide in flue gases. It will, therefore,absorb other contaminants in the flue gases. The nature of the contaminants will depend onthe fuel used in the combustion process. The majority of FGD gypsum is produced from coal-fired power stations and, therefore contains a range of metals as well as combustion products.Gypsum derived from the burning of other materials may contain complex organiccompounds.

4.11.4 Variability

The analytical programme should take account of the likelihood that the gypsum will bevariable in quality between works and with time from a single works until proven otherwise.

4.11.5 Treatment

Gypsum should be dried so that it can be applied in a farm limespreader, or should be suitablefor wet application from a slurry spreader.


Details of the relevant production process related information are necessary beforeconsidering landspreading this material. The waste should be analysed for content of calcium,sulphur and PTEs. If these results are satisfactory, applications as a soil conditioner can bemade to heavy land at a range of 5-20 tonne ha –1, or to sulphur deficient land in accordancewith crop requirements for this nutrient. Excessive additions of sulphur to grassland caninduce copper deficiency in livestock.


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

86

4.12 Slag from the Steel Industry

Quality of slag from the steel industry is shown in Table 4.22, below.

Table 4.22 Slag from the steel industry


Dry solids (%) Supplied as a dry material

C/N ratio

pH High pH material effective for liming

BOD (mg l-1)


Organic matter None

N-TK None

N-NH4

P2O5 10 22

K2O Negligible

CaO 35 42

MgO +

SO3 +


Cadmium – Cd

Chromium –Cr

Copper – Cu +

Mercury – Hg

Nickel – Ni

Lead – Pb

Zinc – Zn +

Boron – B +

Molybdenum – Mo +

Cobalt – Co +


PAH

Sum of 7 PCB



WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

87

Generalised analysis

4.12.1 Background

This material is a by-product of steel making and is used on land principally as a source ofphosphorus. The value of slags for crops depends on the solubility quality of the phosphatepresent which varies according to source and is tested by measuring the solubility of P incitric acid. Basic slags are also effective liming materials having a high content of calcium andsome magnesium. Other elements of potential agricultural benefit that slags contain aresulphur, boron, cobalt, copper, molybdenum and zinc.


Source of phosphate and lime with trace elements.


Basic slags need to be checked for content of potentially toxic elements (PTEs) which may beexcessive

4.12.4 Variability

Likely to be variable between steel works in terms of total content of nutrients, extractability ofP and content of PTEs. Elemental content of slag from a particular works may be consistentover time whilst the works is using the same furnace feedstock but this would need to bechecked.

4.12.5 Treatment

Basic slag should be supplied in suitable physical form for use in a conventional farmlimespreader or fertiliser application equipment.


Suitable for dry storage in bags. Basic slag should be applied to the land in accordance withcrop requirements for P, and the neutralising value of the slag must be considered in relationto the lime requirement of the soil.


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

88

4.13 Waste wood, bark and other plant materials

The typical quality of waste wood, bark and other plant materials is displayed in Table 4.23.

Table 4.23 Waste wood, bark and other plant materials



C/N ratio

pH 4.1 8.4 5.8

BOD (mg l-1)


Organic matter

N-TK

N-NH4 <1 10 4

P2O5 <0.1 0.5 0.2

K2O <0.1 1.5 0.6

CaO 1

Na2O


Cadmium – Cd

Chromium –Cr

Copper – Cu

Mercury – Hg

Nickel – Ni

Lead – Pb

Zinc – Zn


PAH

Sum of 7 PCB

Pathogens


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

89


The analytical information is from the UK only.

4.13.2 Background

This category refers to plant materials recycled in the normal management of land and wouldbe expected to come from the following sources:

• Municipal parks and gardens – usually such waste would be recycled at the site of origin;

• Green waste which is often composted;

• Waste from processing of vegetables other than residues classed as food waste;

• Woody wastes e.g. sawdust and shavings from timber yards, materials from chipboardand other timber product processing, reclaimed timber from buildings, pallets and packingcrates.


The long-term benefits from adding waste wood, bark or other plant material to agriculturalland result from the high organic matter content of the wastes which gives them value as soilconditioners. Some products, such as chipped wood or bark, can be used for immediatebenefit as a mulch to discourage weed growth and conserve moisture.


These waste materials are potentially benign. Exceptions would be material containing oldfencing / waste wood which may have been treated with preservative chemicals such aspentachlorophenol, lindane or copper chrome arsenate. Timber yard by-products may alsocontain persistent preservative chemicals. If their presence is possible, a precautionaryanalysis should be undertaken unless the waste producer can give an assurance that thewaste is free of preservatives.

The nature and origin of waste plant matter needs to be considered in case diseased materialis present that could act as a source of infection for succeeding crops e.g. haulms of potatoesinfected with the potato blight fungus Phytophthora infestans. Rotten wood may harbour thehoney fungus, Armilleria, which can destroy trees and shrubs.

Application to land of wood products with a high C/N ratio can temporarily remove plant-available nitrogen from the soil. Additional inorganic nitrogen should be applied to the soil tocompensate for this and avoid crop yield and quality loss.

4.13.5 Variability

Chemical variability of plant nutrient content is probably of little consequence in the use ofthese materials which are essentially soil conditioners. See Treatment.


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

90

4.13.6 Treatment

Physical quality may need to be improved by screening and shredding. Many of thesematerials are suitable for composting.


If these materials are to be used as soil conditioners then a rate of application to the land ofabout 20 tonne ha-1 yr-1 would be suitable and is not critical; more or less could be appliedaccording to local circumstances. A mulch of bark or wood chips would be applied over thesoil to a depth of about 3 – 8cm according to the size of the chips. Site or field storage withoutcontainment should be feasible except perhaps in the case of putrescible vegetable waste,which should be stabilised by turning occasionally until it no longer smells (a simple form ofcomposting).


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

91

4.14 Waste from chemical and pharmaceutical manufacture

4.14.1 Quality Data

Data from operational analysis of waste from pharmaceutical manufacture is shown below inTable 4.24. This represents sludge from biological synthesis of pharmaceutical. Quality datafor various wastes from the chemical industry is displayed in Tables 4.25 – 4.27 below. Itcovers a wide range of industries such as ammonia production, ammonium sulphateproduction and gelatine production.

Table 4.24 Pharmaceutical waste


Dry solids (%) 0.9 52 9

C/N ratio

pH 3.7 10.5

BOD (mg l-1) 400 88 800 17 000


N-TK 0 17 5

N-NH4 0 17 1.7

P2O5 0 2.9 0.8

K2O 0 1.7 0.3

Mg 0 1.6 0.1


Cadmium – Cd <0.25 <0.25 <0.25

Chromium –Cr <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

Copper – Cu 0.0 13 3.5

Mercury – Hg <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Nickel – Ni <1.0 3.4 0.5

Lead – Pb <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

Zinc – Zn 0.5 19.5 6.3


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

92

Table 4.25 Waste ammonia



C/N ratio

pH 1.5 12.2 8.6

BOD (mg l-1) 11 28 000 7200


N-TK 1 79 31

N-NH4 0 57 27

P2O5 0 47 5

K2O 0 0.9 0.1

Mg 0 0.2 0.05


Cadmium – Cd <0.25 1 0.2

Chromium –Cr <1.0 25 3

Copper – Cu <1.0 18 4

Mercury – Hg <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Nickel – Ni <1.0 1.7 0.3

Lead – Pb <1.0 19 2

Zinc – Zn <1.0 18 5


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

93

Table 4.26 Waste ammonium sulphate



C/N ratio

pH 4.3 9

BOD (mg l-1) 5 33 000 11 000


N-TK 2 33 17

N-NH4 0.5 30 14

P2O5 0.0 0.03 0.01

K2O 0.0 0.2 0.03

Mg 0.0 0.09 0.03


Cadmium – Cd <0.25 <0.25 <0.25

Chromium –Cr <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

Copper – Cu <1.0 2.2 0.6

Mercury – Hg <0.01 0.6 0.1

Nickel – Ni <1.0 1.0 <1.0

Lead – Pb <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

Zinc – Zn <1.0 2.8 0.9


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

94

Table 4.27 Waste from gelatine production


Dry solids (%) 22 69 44

C/N ratio

pH 7.2 12.6 11.8


N-TK 7.4 75 28

P2O5 10 66 27

K2O 0.2 14.5 2

MgO 1.3 20 6.5


Cadmium – Cd 0.7 2.5 1.3

Chromium –Cr 6 37 14

Copper – Cu 4 45 17

Mercury – Hg 0 10 1.3

Nickel – Ni 1 39 14

Lead – Pb 2 22 12

Zinc – Zn 92 1178 411


Quality data was only available from the UK and Belgium. Data is limited due to the relativelysmall amounts of these wastes being spread on land and the general lack of data from theindustry.

4.14.2 Background

Organic wastes produced in the pharmaceutical industry are mainly biomass (cells from thefermentation process), synthesis residues, alcohol and organic solvents from the cleaningprocesses, product residues and dust from reprocessing. Pharmaceuticals are produced usingsynthesis or fermentation. Waste products from synthesis are typically synthesis residues andsolvents. Waste products from fermentation are typically biomass and fermentation liquid. Ofthese wastes the fermentation residues are most likely to be landspread. The biomass inthese residues breaks down in the soil providing nutrients for plant growth.

A large amount of waste is produced by the chemical industry, some of this may be beneficialto crop growth and used for landspreading, particularly waste ammonia, ammonium sulphateand wastes from the manufacture of fertilisers. These vary considerably in quantity and qualityand should be considered for landspreading on an individual basis. It should be remembered,


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

95

however, some countries do not allow wastes of this origin to be spread on land, this is mostlikely due to their variable nature making blanket authorisation virtually impossible.


Analyses have shown that some of these wastes contain nutrients beneficial to plant growth.In Denmark, pharmaceutical and fertiliser wastes make the largest contribution of nutrients ofall industrial wastes, contributing to 62% of the total P and 23% of the total N applied to landfrom industrial waste.

Chemical wastes such as ammonium and ammonium sulphate have obvious benefits of highnitrogen content.


These wastes are highly variable according to their origin and therefore properly qualifiedadvice should always be sought when considering land application of these wastes (seesection 1.1.5).

Particular care has to be taken where biomass originates from antibiotic production: Most ofthe antibiotics are removed in the extraction process, however, it is very difficult to remove thelast trace of product. Antibiotics remaining in the waste may adversely affect the soilmicrobiological population, but this is likely to be a short term effect. Exposure of soil-micro-organisms to antibiotics could result in dissemination of resistance to antibiotics throughnatural populations. Some research is needed to resolve this question.

Care should be taken when applying wastes with very high nitrogen content. These should beapplied at very low rates and strictly in accordance with crop requirements. Surfaceapplications should be avoided to prevent damage to crops by scorching.

4.14.5 Variability

The quality of these wastes will vary considerably according to the product produced and theprocesses and raw materials used. Before considering the landspreading of such a material,properly qualified advice must be taken as to its safety and any environmental risk associatedwith the process. A thorough evaluation should be made of the wastes, to include, the quantityof antibiotic and cells/colonies remaining in the waste; the major plant nutrients in the wasteand other contaminants; and the effect that residual antibiotic or cells/colonies may have onthe soil microbiological population.

4.14.6 Treatment

The need for treatment will depend on the nature and origin of the waste. Treatment mayinvolve stabilisation via digestion or composting or addition of lime, or a controlledpasteurisation process. Level of treatment will also depend upon economies of scale involvedand local regulation.


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

96

4.14.7 Application / Storage

Wastes from these industries should not be spread without a detailed evaluation of the wasteand use of properly qualified advice. Application rate should be based on crop nutrientrequirement and concentrations of potentially toxic elements.

Where wastes contain high concentrations of ammonia, care should be taken to avoid directcontact with leaves so as to avoid scorching. Applications can lead to a reduction in soil pHvalue.


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

97

5. LEGISLATION AND OTHER CONTROLS, ENVIRONMENTALAND ECONOMIC FACTORS

5.1 Legislation

The Waste Framework Directive (75/442/EEC as amended 91/156/EEC)) sets out theprinciples of the necessary controls where waste materials are to be recycled to the land butthere is a case for introducing more specific controls to ensure a high level of environmentalprotection. The principles are that Member states shall take the necessary measures toensure that waste is recovered or disposed of without endangering human health and withoutusing processes or methods which could harm the environment, and in particular:

• without risk to water, air, soil and plants and animals;

• without causing a nuisance through noise or odours; and

• without adversely affecting the countryside or places of special interest.

Member States shall also take the necessary measures to prohibit the abandonment, dumpingor uncontrolled disposal waste.

Annex IIB of Directive 75/442/EEC lists the operations which may lead to recovery, includingR10 – spreading on land resulting in benefit to agriculture or ecological improvement,including composting and other biological transformation processes, except in the case ofwaste excluded under Article 2 (1) (b) (iii). The latter includes animal carcasses and thefollowing agricultural material: faecal matter and other natural, non-dangerous substancesused in farming.

These principles could be adjusted and expanded to provide a higher level of environmentalprotection where wastes are recycled to land but without introducing excessive restrictionswhich lead to more disposal of waste and less waste recovery by landspreading.

Competent authorities in several Member States (Denmark, France, Germany, UK – seeAppendices) have already taken initiatives to develop effective regulation by building on the

Waste Framework Directive. As regards reporting, there is an onus on Member states underArticle 5 of Directive 91/692/EEC, on standardising and rationalising reports on theimplementation of certain Directives relating to the environment, to supply information to theCommission about implementation of the Waste Framework Directive. There is a need for thisinformation to obtain firm data about the extent of landspreading of wastes in the EU.

More specific controls for landspreading of wastes could be compiled from the EuropeanWaste Catalogue (classification) and from Directives 86/278/EEC on landspreading of sewagesludge and 91/676/EEC on protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates fromagricultural sources. These two Directives, and extended guidance for their implementationwhich is available in most Member States, contain much of relevance to the landspreading ofwastes.


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

98

Also relevant is the EC initiative on biodegradable waste, now at the discussion stage, whichis intended to help meet the targets of the Landfill Directive 1999/31/EC to progressivelyreduce the quantities of biodegradable waste disposed of to landfill. The Working Document(2nd draft) on the Biological Treatment of Biowaste has the following objectives:

• To promote the biological treatment of biowaste by harmonising the national measuresconcerning its management in order to prevent or reduce any negative impact thereof onthe environment, thus providing a high level of environmental protection.

• To protect the soil and ensure that the use of treated and untreated biowaste results inbenefit to agriculture or ecological improvement.

• To ensure that human as well as animal and plant health is not affected by the use oftreated or untreated biowaste.

• To ensure the functioning of the internal market and to avoid obstacles to trade anddistortion and restriction of competition within the Community.

The current exclusion from Regulation of farm animal waste should be reconsidered bearingin mind the large quantity recycled to land in the EU and its polluting potential (nutrients,pathogens and chemicals).

For some industrial waste producers Directive 96/61/EC concerning integrated pollutionprevention and control (IPPC) will be of relevance.

5.2 Environmental factors

The key tenet in support of landspreading of wastes is that it recycles nutrients and organicmatter to the land which would otherwise be lost in disposal to landfill or thermal destruction.In landfill, organic waste is potentially polluting because it causes leachate production andrelease of the greenhouse gas, methane. A residual ash or char is left behind from mostthermal processes which still needs to be disposed of and carbon dioxide is lost to theatmosphere. There is potential for energy recovery from thermal processes and landfill(through methane collection). Provided that benefit to agriculture (or ecological improvement)can be demonstrated, landspreading of wastes is considered preferable to thermal destructionor landfilling in the ranking of options in the Waste Framework Directive. The Directive on thelandfill of waste 1999/31/EC details requirements for Member States to set up a nationalstrategy for the implementation of the reduction of biodegradable waste going to landfills and,together with the landfill tax in some Member States, this will encourage the recycling of morewaste to land.

Therefore, the potential advantages of landspreading for the environment include:

• Recovery of waste which might otherwise be dumped or destroyed;

• Replacement of chemical fertilisers – a potentially more sustainable approach thanreliance on continuous supplies of nitrogenous fertiliser from energy-intensive processes,and phosphate fertiliser and peat soil conditioners from finite sources; and

• Improvement of soil structure.


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

99

Potential disadvantages of landspreading include:

• Hazard to human and animal health due to pathogens;

• soil contamination from potentially toxic and persistent elements or organic compounds,and associated implications including long-term effects on soil fertility.

• pollution of water (surface and groundwater);

• nuisance (odour, visual);

• damage to soil structure from spreading operations.

Other environmental effects to be considered and compared between the waste managementoptions would include:

• Acid gas emissions, comprising the oxides of sulphur and nitrogen (N02 and N0);

• greenhouse gas emissions – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide (N2 0) and the oxidesof sulphur;

• net primary energy consumption – fuel, other energy associated with treatment, storageand transport assets, net electricity consumption, the value of waste used on the land in(partially) substituting for fertilisers, any waste heat recovered.

Waste producers using the landspreading outlet must recognise that it is waste recovery notwaste disposal. They should be prepared to improve the management of wastes forlandspreading by investment as appropriate in storage at the point of production, dewateringand other treatment, monitoring and analysis, and field trials to quantify the agricultural benefitof their wastes.

Provided its potential disadvantages can be suitably controlled, landspreading shouldcompare favourably with the other waste management options. Such a comparison would becomplicated by the variability of activities but could be demonstrated by environmental impactassessment or life cycle analysis of operations selected as being either generallyrepresentative, or evaluation of options for the major wastes – farm animal waste, paperwaste, and food waste.

5.3 Economic factors

Two of the benefits of landspreading of waste are that it is often an economic route for thewaste producer compared with the other options available and for the farmer it usuallyrepresents a free or competitively-priced source of nutrients and/or soil conditioner. Obviouslymany factors will influence the economics of particular operations, but a broad estimate ismade as follows for the cost of disposal of 1 tonne of waste or 1m3 of effluent using data fromFrance.

Landspreading = 15 - 25 Euro for solid waste, or 1 – 4 Euro for effluent

Landfill = 25 - 55 Euro including a landfill tax of 9 Euro


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

100

Incineration = 45 - 90 Euro

See also Appendix E, Fance, Table E2 and text.

The many factors which will influence the comparative cost of landspreading include:

• Distance from site of production to the farm. A round trip of no more than 20 km ispreferred. Suitable land for the waste may not be available locally and it cannot beassumed that all farmers will be prepared to use waste on their land.

• Cost of finding suitable land and negotiation/contact with farmers.

• Cost of pretreatment of the waste. Often, the extent of pretreatment is minimal and acommitment by the producer to ensure that the waste is consistent, for instance in such abasic parameter as dry solids content, would demonstrate some movement from disposalto recycling and would encourage farmers to take the material.

• Cost savings on transport and field spreading from minimisation treatment of the waste(thickening, dewatering, drying) which reduces the bulk volume for disposal.

• Recovery of value from the waste. If the producer pretreats the waste so that it isconsistent and defines broadly the agronomic value (for instance, content of crop-availablenutrients) of the treated material then the farmer is able to realise some value in terms ofsavings on fertiliser expenditure and may be prepared to pay for the waste product. Thebalance of economics here lies between the cost of pretreatment and testing comparedwith the charge recovered for the product. Another less quantifiable but importantconsideration is that the treated and tested product is likely to have improved acceptabilityand sustainability for landspreading.

• Cost of storage of the waste. There may be periods of the year, possibly up to 6 months ormore when land is not available for landspreading due to unsuitable soil conditions (toowet, frozen) or presence of a standing crop.

• Cost of compliance with regulations (licensing, testing, monitoring, record-keeping,administration).

• Emergence of economically viable alternative options (e.g. in energy recoverytechnology).

5.4 Social factors

The development of landspreading depends partly on public acceptance of the concept and oflandspreading operations at the local level. Acceptance of the concept requires a publicrelations exercise to inform and educate about the need for recycling of wastes to land asopposed to dumping in landfill or incineration. This can be achieved through the media and byexhibitions and ‘open days’ at operational sites. The promotion must be supported bydemonstration that all environmental aspects of landspreading are understood and controlledso that the practice is safe and of environmental and agricultural benefit.

Landspreading depends on the willingness of farmers to accept waste for recycling on theirland and this willingness may be influenced by various outside influences. An important factor


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

101

is the attitude of the buyers of farm produce to the fact that waste has been recycled on theland. Any suggestion of a public acceptance problem with food made from crops grown onwaste-treated land might cause the buyer to compel the farmer to stop the practice.

Public acceptance at the local level is important. Neighbourhood concerns can be triggered byodour, visual and traffic nuisance all of which must be avoided both at the plants where thewaste is produced and treated, and at the farms where it is spread. This will require makingsure the waste is treated as far as possible to remove odour, planning lorry routes to the farmto avoid nuisance, and ploughing in waste soon after spreading on the land or else applyingthe waste by subsurface soil injection.


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11July 2001

768-1 102


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

103

6. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONTROLS AT COMMUNITYLEVEL

These recommendations set out an outline scheme for cost-effective controls onlandspreading intended to provide across the EU a ‘level playing field’ for stakeholders,reliable information for regulators and a high level of environmental protection wherelandspreading of wastes is practised. The recommendations include a strong element of selfregulation; the waste producer or their agent has to provide most of the information required inthe proposed scheme.

6.1 Definitions

The terms benefit to agriculture and ecological improvement from the Waste FrameworkDirective must be fulfilled if a waste is to be permitted for spreading on the land and they needfurther definition to clarify what has to be achieved. For example, definitions suggested in theUK (Environment Agency UK 1998) are as follows:

Agricultural benefit will be achieved when the application of a waste to land improves soilconditions for crop growth whilst ensuring the protection of environmental quality in thebroadest sense as required by Article 4 of the Waste Framework Directive 75/442/EEC.

The benefits can be measured in terms of:

• Crop yield and quality. The most important indicator of agricultural benefit to which theother benefits each make some contribution;

• Soil chemical properties. Benefits that the waste will bring to the soil in terms of addition ofplant nutrients in particular, and improvements in soil pH value;

• Soil physical properties. Addition of organic matter; improvements in water holdingcapacity, porosity, stability, tilth, workability and soil structure, and reduced potential forsoil erosion. Addition of chemicals such as gypsum can also improve the workability ofsalty and heavy clay soils;

• Soil biological properties. Addition of organic matter improves water retention andaeration, conditions for root growth and populations of worms and micro-organisms, andprovides a buffer against leaching of nitrogen and phosphorus.

• Soil water content. Application of watery wastes can bring benefit when there is a soilmoisture deficit limiting crop growth;

• Land levelling. May bring agricultural benefit in some situations.

Conversely, properties of wastes that can be non-beneficial include: excessive application ofnutrients or nutrient imbalance, nutrient immobilisation, content of potentially toxiccontaminants, excessive acidity or alkalinity, sodium content and conductivity, smell, visualappearance including colour and litter content, pathogens (human, animal and plant), textureand handleability, high carbon/nitrogen ratio and high BOD – biological oxygen demand.


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

104

Ecological improvement will be achieved by the maintenance of habitats and their biodiversitywhere these would otherwise deteriorate, the provision of new habitats for wildlife and thedevelopment or restoration of existing habitats to give greater biodiversity and sustainability.

Usually, the case for landspreading a waste will be determined by demonstrating benefit toagriculture. The ecological improvement criterion is likely to be confined to situations where itis proposed to use wastes in land reclamation or similar operations.

The categories of wastes likely to be suitable for landspreading: The survey shows that thereis some confusion about definitions of the wastes suitable for landspreading. Suitable wastesneed to be identified, defined and if appropriate grouped into broad categories to make for aworkable classification for use across the EU. Only this way will it be possible to controllandspreading effectively since the classification is fundamental to collect coherent informationand make sensible comparisons. The new EC list of wastes to be published in the OfficialJournal of the EC and which will take effect on 1st January 2002 may help clarify the positionby providing a starting point in terms of a list of named wastes. A separate list of wastessuitable for landspreading could be selected from the EC list and further classified andgrouped as appropriate. Inclusion on the EC list ‘does not mean that the material is a waste inall circumstances’. This is relevant to the question of ‘by-products’ which also needs to beresolved in deriving a workable classification of wastes for landspreading. For example, thefood and drink sector generates large quantities of materials it considers to be not wastes butby-products, most of which are recycled into the process, used in secondary processes orsupplied to farmers for use as animal feed or for landspreading. There are similar examplesfrom other sectors of industry which supply ‘by-products’ for landspreading. As ‘by-products’these materials are currently outside the controls on landspreading of wastes in agriculturewhich may be convenient for the producer but is not necessarily compatible with ensuring ahigh level of environmental protection where these materials are used in agriculture forlandspreading. The German experience on classification of wastes for landspreading(Appendix) will be of assistance in developing a scheme for the EU as a whole. This processhas already begun with the useful waste and waste treatment definitions in The EC WorkingDocument (2nd draft) on the Biological Treatment of Biowaste.

In developing a practical scheme for operational purposes, a further banding of materials intobroad groups maybe helpful. All materials would be subject to overall generic controls andthere would be further specific controls for each group according to their properties. The maingroups might be:

Class 1 Farm residues recycled on the farm of production e.g. manure from animalsgrazing in situ.

Class 2 Benign wastes containing negligible levels of contaminants e.g. green waste,biological sludge from food waste treatment.

Class 3 Wastes which may contain contaminants (pathogens, heavy metals and otherpotentially toxic elements, organic contaminants) e.g. Dredgings from waterways,tannery waste, paper waste.

6.2 Registering a waste for landspreading

The competent authority in each Member State would use the scheme above to classifyparticular wastes proposed for landspreading on receipt of a standard submission from the


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

105

waste producer or their agent. Progressively detailed information would be required accordingto the class of waste along the following lines:

Class 1 Source of waste (address of place of production or treatment centre, and quantityof waste arising tonne/annum)

Extent of treatment e.g. storage for 3 months at ambient temperature.

Class 2 As for Class 1 plus

Basis for benefit to agriculture e.g. content of nitrogen.

Content of plant nutrients and lime (nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium,magnesium, sulphur, trace elements), organic matter, dry solids. pH value

Evidence that the waste contains only negligible concentrations of contaminants

Class 3. As for Class 1 plus

Basis for benefit to agriculture

Content of plant nutrients etc. as for Class 2

Content of contaminants (pathogens – most probable numbers; concentrations ofheavy metals, other potentially toxic elements and organic contaminants)

Evidence that the waste is free of contaminants other than those specified

All analytical data presented in the submission would be obtained on the basis of specifiedsampling and other procedures so as to provide results statistically representative of thewaste for landspreading. As regards the Class 3 wastes the quality rules in Directive86/278/EEC (landspreading of sewage sludge) could provide the basis for deciding onacceptability for landspreading.

If the competent authority is satisfied with the information received it can use the classificationscheme to designate the waste into its specific and generic class were it to be used forlandspreading. Alternatively, the competent authority might ask for further information beforemaking its decision or might designate the waste as unsuitable for landspreading. In the lattercase, the competent authority would indicate the basis for its decision so that the producercould take necessary actions such as pretreatment or clean-up to improve the quality of thewaste and reapply for landspreading designation. The designation of the waste (suitable orunsuitable for landspreading) would hold for a specified period or until such time as changesoccur to the quality of the waste which could affect its designation according to theclassification above. The competent authority would keep a register of wastes it haddesignated.

6.3 Permit for a landspreading operation

How the landspreading operation is managed on the farm is very important if benefit toagriculture is to be achieved and environmental problems are to be avoided.


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

106

Once the waste has been designated as suitable for landspreading, the waste producer ortheir agent can apply to the competent authority for a permit for a proposed landspreadingoperation.

In the UK landspreading of a list of ‘exempted‘ wastes is authorised under the WasteManagement Licensing Regulations 1994. The regulating authority in the UK is theEnvironment Agency which must be notified in advance of any proposed landspreadingactivity. Similar arrangements apply in Denmark for instance. The waste producer orcontractor has to notify the regulatory authority of an intended landspreading operationincluding details of the quantity and quality of the waste and the location of the spreading site.The minimum prenotification period is not usually specified and often not enough notice isgiven to the regulatory authority to check up the details supplied and properly appraise theoperation before it takes place. A prenotification period of a minimum of two weeks issuggested.

A permitting system may be preferable to ensure a high level of environmental protection.There is no reason why the permit should be confined to a single operation. It might coverseveral wastes and farms and a number or spreading operations provided that the competentauthority is satisfied that the following criteria are met:

• The waste(s) have been designated as suitable for landspreading

• Article 4 of the Waste Framework Directive

• 91/676/ EEC (nitrates)

• 86/278/EEC for Class 3 wastes

• The operation will be compatible with the farm waste/fertiliser plan

• The activity will be undertaken by competent operator(s)

• A site risk assessment has been carried out by properly qualified personnel and necessaryprecautions to ensure a high level of environmental protection will be acted upon

• A record of each spreading operation will be kept (type of waste, quantity of waste applied,location of farm and field, date of spreading) including the results of monitoring andanalysis, and supplied to the competent authority

It will be easier to demonstrate compliance with these criteria for a benign waste than a Class3 waste. The competent authority would keep a register of permits issued and the record ofeach landspreading operation.

The competent authority would make the necessary site visits and spotchecks to confirm thatlandspreading operations were in compliance with the permit conditions and the recordswould indicate where any pollution incident could be linked with a landspreading operation.

A further consideration which might streamline the registering of wastes and permitting oflandspreading operations would be to issue landspreading licences to operators. A licensedoperator would be familiar with the control requirements for landspreading and theiradministration and would be known to the competent authority, all of which should streamlinethe authorisation process. In order to obtain a licence, an operator would make a submission


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

107

including the capabilities of personnel, track record in landspreading of wastes including anypollution offences, access to properly qualified advice, transport and spreading equipmentavailable, environmental policy, quality assurance procedures and liability insurance. Thecompetent authority would either issue a landspreading licence for a designated period orindicate why it could not do so. The competent authority would keep a register of operatorslicenced for landspreading.

6.4 Database of information

As a result of this proposed scheme, the competent regulatory authority in each Member Statecould build up from its regional offices a national database comprising the registers ofdesignated wastes and landspreading permits from which all relevant information aboutlandspreading of wastes could be derived. Summary data could be reported to theCommission as required to present a synopsis of landspreading of wastes across the EU.


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/1176July 2001

8-1 108


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

109

REFERENCES

Council of the European Communities (1975) Waste Framework Directive 75/442/EEC.Official Journal of the European Communities, 25.7.75 No L194/.

Council of the European Communities (1986) Council Directive on the protection of theenvironment, and in particular of the soil, when sewage sludge is used in agriculture86/278/EEC. Official Journal of the European Communities, 4.7.86 No L181/6-12.

Council of the European Communities (1991) Council Directive amending Directive75/442/EEC on waste 91/156/EEC. Official Journal of the European Communities, 26.3.91 NoL78/32-37.

Council of the European Communities (1991) Council Directive concerning the protection ofwaters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources 91/676/EEC. OfficialJournal of the European Communities, 12.12.91 No L375/1-8.

Council of the European Communities (1991) Council Directive standardizing and rationalizingreports on the implementation of certain Directives relating to the environment 91/692/EEC.Official Journal of the European Communities, No L377/48-54.

Council of the European Communities (1996) Council Directive 96/61/EC concerningintegrated pollution prevention and control.

Council of the European Communities (1999) Council Directive on the landfill of waste1999/31/EC. Official Journal of the European Communities, 16.7.1999 No L182/1-19.

Environment Agency UK (1998) Investigation of the criteria for, and guidance on, thelandspreading of industrial wastes. R&D Technical Report P193. Available from EnvironmentAgency R&D Dissemination Centre, c/o WRc, Frankland Road, Swindon, Wiltshire SN5 8YF,UK.

European Commission Working Document (2nd draft) on the Biological Treatment of Biowaste(2001). DG Environment A.2/LM, Brussels.

Hall, J. E. (1999) Nutrient Recycling: The European Experience. Asian-Ans. J. Anim. Sci. 12,(4) 667-674.


WRc Ref: CO 4953-2/11768-1July 2001

110

EUROPEAN COMMISSION-DIRECTORATE-GENERALFOR ENVIRONMENT

SURVEY OF WASTES SPREAD ON LAND - FINALREPORT

APPENDICES

WRc Ref: CO 4953-2JULY 2001

SURVEY OF WASTES SPREAD ON LAND - FINAL REPORT

APPENDICES

Report No.: CO 4953-2

July 2001

WRc - A. Gendebien, R. Ferguson, J. Brink, H. Horth, M. Sullivan and R. Davis.

SEDE - H. Brunet, F. Dalimier, B. Landrea, D Krack and J. Perot

REI - C. Orsi

Contract Manager: A.H. Gendebien

Contract No.: 11768-1

RESTRICTION: This report has the following limited distribution:

Internal: Contract Manager and Authors

Any enquiries relating to this report should be referred to the authors at the followingaddress:

WRc Medmenham, Henley Road, Medmenham, Marlow, Bucks, SL7 2HD.Telephone: (01491) 571531

The contents of this document are subject to copyright and all rights are reserved. No part ofthis document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form orby any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the priorwritten consent of the copyright owner.

This document has been produced by WRc plc.

CONTENTS

Detailed information on landspreading of wastes in individual Member States.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A AUSTRIA 111

APPENDIX B BELGIUM 125

APPENDIX C DENMARK 149

APPENDIX D FINLAND 193

APPENDIX E FRANCE 207

APPENDIX F GERMANY 297

APPENDIX G GREECE 359

APPENDIX H IRELAND 371

APPENDIX I ITALY 389

APPENDIX J GRAND DUCHY OF LUXEMBOURG 435

APPENDIX K NETHERLANDS 443

APPENDIX L PORTUGAL 457

APPENDIX M SPAIN 463

APPENDIX N SWEDEN 477

APPENDIX O UNITED KINGDOM 499


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

111

APPENDIX A AUSTRIA

SUMMARY

Similar to Germany, Austria is a Federal State where framework legislation is passed atFederal level, but the implementation and enforcement of legislation is generally under thecompetence of the individual Federal States (Länder) and regional government.

In principle, the main laws appropriate to the application of waste materials to land are; theFederal Waste Management Act 1990, the Federal Fertiliser Act 1994, the Soil ProtectionLaws of individual States and the Sewage Sludge Ordinances of individual States. A CompostOrdinance with limit values is in preparation.

Farm animal waste is normally applied to land where the waste is produced, although in somecases this has led to excess nutrient input to soils. No records appear to be available, neitherof quantities, nor of the quality, of farm animal wastes.

Industrial waste materials do not seem to be applied to land, except those permitted for thepreparation of fertilisers. Some other waste materials seem to be applied to land (e.g. from thefood and drinks industries, as compost) but it has not been possible to obtain any information.On the whole, it appears that farmers are not likely to accept industrial waste materials for useon agricultural land.

The main forms of disposal seem to be; land filling, incineration (energy production) andindustrial recycling. However, land filling of organic wastes will be greatly reduced by 2004,when legislation limiting the organic content to 5%, will come into force. It is expected thatland filling of such products will be replaced by incineration. The change is expected to resultin increased disposal costs.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

112


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

113

A1 LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

Similar to Germany, Austria is a Federal State where framework legislation is passed atFederal level, but the implementation and enforcement of legislation is generally under thecompetence of the individual Federal States (Länder) and regional government.

In principle, the following legislation is appropriate to the application of waste materials to land(Umweltbundesamt 1996, 1997):

• The Federal Waste Management Act 1990;

• The Federal Fertiliser Act 1994;

• Soil Protection Laws of individual States;

• The Sewage Sludge Ordinances of individual States.

The Federal Waste Management Act (Abfallwirtschaftsgesetz 1990) which came into force on1 July 1990, provides the legal framework for the avoidance, utilisation and disposal of waste.

There is at present no specific Federal law governing soil conservation or protection, althoughit has been declared, in the Federal Constitution (Amendment 1984), a sub-domain ofenvironmental protection, and thus represents a matter of environmental concern. However,some individual States have Soil Protection Laws (Umweltbundesamt 1996, 1997).

Industrial waste materials do not seem to be applied to land, except in the form of compost(food industry) or those permitted for the preparation of fertilisers (see Table A.1). A CompostOrdinance with limit values is in preparation (Dr. L. Zahrer, personal communication).

Where industrial waste waters are treated in municipal waste water treatment plants, theresulting sludge will be subject to regulations governing the application of waste watertreatment sludge to land. There are no separate regulations for industrial waste watertreatment sludge, but these are not normally applied to land (Dr. L. Zahrer, personalcommunication). The limit values for sewage sludge and soil are shown in Table A2, indicatingsome differences in the values in different Federal States.

In the past, animal waste production has been kept in check through the Animal HusbandryAct, which prescribed maximum live stock limits for animal breeding (Umweltbundesamt1994). However, this requirement has been changed in the adjustment to EU policy andlegislation (Amendment to the Animal Husbandry Act, allowing higher numbers of live stockper land area, Umweltbundesamt 1996, 1997).


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

114

Table A1 Materials permitted for the preparation of fertilisers in Austria (dataprovided by T Brech, personal communication)

a) Plant materials:Green compostBark / bark productsWood chippings / wood fibresBeer and fruit filtration residuesPotato – residual waterResidual liquid from alcohol productionRice husks / chaffCoconut fibres / wasteCocoa bean skinsCoffee roasting wastePlant waste (jute, hemp, flax)Aspirator waste (cereal processing)Pressing and extraction residues (oil seed, sunflower),MolassesExtracts of plant material with low nutrient contentSpent residues (beer / wine production)CellulosePlant glycosidesWorm soil / mould (worm excreta)Algae, alginateSeaweedMycelia (penicillum chrysogenum, Aspergillus niger)b) Animal materials:Blood mealSkin meal (skin, hide, pelt, fur)Hoof meal and chippings (separated, roasted)Feather mealHair mealBone mealCarcass mealFish mealFish guanoCollagen protein hydrolysateSheep woolAnimal hide (treated and untreated)Deer hornAnimal excrementWorm soil / mould (worm excreta)c) Other materials:Calcium nitrate Calcium sulfateMagnesium nitrate Calcium carbonateSodium nitrate Calcium chlorideAmmonium nitrate Magnesium carbonateAmmonium sulfate Dolomite calcium oxideAmmonium sulfate nitrate Magnesium sulfateDicyandiamide Calcium hydroxideCalcium cyanamide Magnesium hydroxideUrea Silicates of calcium and magnesiumCrotonylidenediurea LimestoneOxamide Chalk


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

115

c) Other materials (continued)Crude phosphate (ground, partially orcompletely processed / hydrolysed?)

Magnesite

Phosphoric acid ‘Burnt‘ limeMonocalcium phosphate Hydrated limeDicalcium phosphate Algae limeTricalcium phosphate Foundry limeAlkali calcium phosphate Residual lime (e.g. decarbonation lime)Calcium silica phosphate Carbonation limesAluminium calcium phosphate Lime from lime/nitrogen production processProcessed (hydrolysed?) phosphates Poultry excrement limeMonoammonium phosphate and diammoniumphosphate

Clay and clay minerals

Monopotassium phosphate Fullers earthColemanite and pandermite (Calcium borate) ‘Swelling’ slatePotassium salts (crude) PerlitePotassium chloride PumicePotassium sulfate Tile / brick splitsKieserite (magnesium sulfate) Stone mealMagnesium salts ClayBoric acid SandSodium borate SoilBoron ethanolamine Silica colloidsCalcium borate Humic materialCobalt chelate Micro organisms / bacteriaCobalt salts Sanoplant (hydrogel)Copper chelate Fertiferm (silica gel sludge)Copper hydroxide Polyethylene glycolCopper salts DMPPCopper oxychloride DTPAIron chelate Sodium molybdateIron-II salts Ammonium molybdateManganese chelate Zinc chelateManganese oxide Zinc saltsManganese-II salts Zinc oxides


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

116

Table A2 Permitted limit values (standard values) for pollutants in sewage sludgeand soil (mg kg-1 dry substance) (Umweltbundesamt, 1994)

Sewage Sludge:

Bgld* NÖ OÖ Salzburg Styria Tyrol Vbg ÖWWV

zinc 2,000 2,000 1,600 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000copper 500 500 400 500 500 500 500 500chromium 500 500 400 500 500 500 500 500lead 500 500 400 500 500 500 500 500nickel 100 100 80 100 100 100 100 100cobalt - 100 - 100 100 100 100 -arsenic - - - 20 - 20 - -molybdenum

- - - - 20 20 20 -

cadmium 10 10 5 10 10 10 10 10mercury 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10AOX - - 500 - - - - -PCB(each)**

- - 0.2** - - - - -

PCDD/PCDF+

- - 100+ - - - - -

Soil:Bgld* NÖ OÖ Salzburg Styria Tyrol Vbg ÖWWV

zinc 300 300 300# 300 300 300 300 300copper 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100chromium 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100lead 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100nickel 60 50 60 60 60 50 60 50cobalt - - - 50 50 50 - -arsenic - - - 20 - 20 - -Molybden-um

- - - 10 10 10 - -

cadmium 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 3mercury 1.5 2 1 2 2 2 2 2Notes:

* quality grade 2; the following values are valid for sewage sludge of quality grade 1: zinc 1000, copper 100,chromium 100, lead 100, nickel 60, cadmium 2, mercury 2.

** IUPAC standards Nos. 28, 52, 101, 138, 153,180+ expressed in 2-,3-,7-,8-TCDD toxicity equivalents (ng kg-1)# for soil with a pH value under 6.0: limit value for zinc 150

Bgld (Burgenland): Sewage Sludge and Waste Composting Ordinance (Provincial Legal Gazette 82/1991)NÖ (Lower Austria); Sewage Sludge – Waste Composting Ordinance 6160/1-0 Original Ordinance 13/89OÖ (Upper Austria): Sewage Sludge, Waste and Sewage Sludge – Composting Ord. (Provincial Legal Gazette21/1993)Salzburg: Guideline for the Use of Sewage Sludge in Agriculture (Nov.1987)Styria: Sewage Sludge Ordinance (Provincial Legal Gazette 89/1987)Tyrol: Guidelines for the Spreading of Sewage Sludge on Soil (July 1987)ÖWWV (Austrian Water Management Association): Regulation Folio 17: Agricultural Use of Sewage Sludge,Recommendations for Operators of Sewage Treatment Plants, 1984.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

117

A2 QUANTITIES OF WASTE RECYCLED TO LAND

Farm waste

Farm animal waste is normally applied to land where the waste is produced, although in somecases this has led to excess nutrient input to soils (Umweltbundesamt 1996, 1997).

The quantity of animal manure generated in Austria has been estimated to amount to 30million tonnes (fresh weight). This is based on the number of animal extracted from Eurostatdatabase (see Table A3).

Table A3 Estimated volumes of farm waste generated in Austria

Animal category Number(x103)

Yield(l/week)

Quantity(x106 tonne/year)

Cattle 2,153

Less than 1 year 631 80 2600

Between 1 – 2 years 488 140 3500

More than 2 years: 0

Male/heifer 159 250 2000

Dairy cow 698 315 11,400

Other cow 177 280 2,600

Pigs 3,512 0

Less than 20 kg 971 15 760

Fattening pigs more than 20 kg 2173 30 3,400

Breeding pigs 133 60 400

Covered sows 235 100 1200

Poultry 0

Broiler ND 0.2

Laying hens 5,580 1.1 300

Total 28,400

Industrial Waste

Table A4 summarises the available data for quantities of waste arising in Austria; thisexcludes domestic waste, water and waste water treatment sludge and waste from thebuilding industry (compiled from: Umweltbundesamt 1996 and 1997).

No data are available about any application of these waste materials on land. However, itseems that they are not normally used on agricultural land directly (Dr. L. Zahrer, Dipl. Ing, T.Bech, personal communications) except where the material is permitted for the production offertiliser (see Table AS.1), or in the form of compost. In fact, the most commonly useddisposal options seem to be landfill (but see below), incineration (energy production), or re-cycling in industrial processes.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

118

For example, the proportion of industrial re-cycling of wood waste from the wood processingindustry was estimated at 98% (Umweltbundesamt 1996, 1997).

Solid waste materials from the food and drinks industry are mainly converted to compost,whilst liquid wastes are treated and the residues will be part of the wastewater treatmentsludge. However, industrial wastewater treatment sludges are not usually applied to land (Dr.L. Zahrer, Dipl. Ing. T. Bech, personal communications).

No details are given for drinking water treatment sludge, as this information is providedtogether with municipal wastewater treatment sludge.

The survey of pulp and paper sludge (Dr Zetti, in CEPI, 2000) has revealed clearly, that noneof these materials are applied to land (Table A4). The reason for this was given as non-acceptance by farmers who suspect the presence of hazardous substances (worst casescenario).

Table A4 Pulp and paper sludge production and methods of re-use and disposal inAustria (Dr. Zetti, Austropapier, in: CEPI, 2000)

SludgefromPulp

Production

Sludgefrom

PaperProduction

Sludgefrom

Recycling

Sludgefrom

De-inking

Quantities in (m3/a) 42 407 481 715 75 864 Included inpaperproduction

Quantities in t/a dry solids 19 083 239 981 38 336

Are data measured (M)or estimated (E) ?

M M M

Percentage recycled inagriculture

0 0 0

Percentage recycled onforest soils

0 0 0

Percentage recycled inland reclamation

0 0 0

Percentage landfilled 0.7 1.8 82.3

Percentage incinerated 76.3 84,6 17.7

Other (e.g. recycled inother industries)

23.0 13.6 0


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

119

It seems that the re-use / disposal pattern is probably broadly typical for most wastes ofinterest in this study (except for farm wastes and wastes which are composted), i.e. thisseems to provide a good example with the main disposal options being incineration, landfilland industrial re-use.

However, the future trend for waste from the paper industry is expected to move away fromlandfill and towards incineration, because of the introduction of legislation, which, as from2004, will no longer permit land filling of materials with a carbon content of more than 5%.Thus, all currently land filled materials will have to be incinerated from 2004 onwards. There isa landfill tax (varying widely, depending on the material and landfill site) but the paper industryassociation expects a doubling of the disposal fees by incineration. As the recyclingpossibilities of waste paper increase, and lower qualities may be used, increased volumes ofsludge from recycling and de-inking are expected in Austria (Dr. Zetti, Austropapier, in: CEPI,2000).

We have no detail of other industrial wastes, but a similar scenario is likely to apply to manyother types of organic, industrial waste.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

120


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

121

A3 QUALITY OF WASTE RECYCLED TO LAND

No information seems to be available on the quality of waste materials; this seems of littleimportance, since there does not seem to be much application of wastes directly on land.

However, wastes, which are used as a basis for fertiliser production, will be subject tostandards set out in legislation concerning fertiliser application, as well as soil and waterprotection. Similarly, waste materials that are composted and then applied to land, will besubject to soil protection legislation and the Compost Ordinance which is in preparation.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

122


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

123

REFERENCES

Laws and regulations

Abfallwirtschaftsgesetz (Federal Waste Management Act) 1990, Bundesgesetzblatt (BGBl.)1990/325.

Amendment (1984) to the Federal Constitution, Federal Legal Gazette, No. 491, 1984.

Düngemittelgesetz (Federal Fertiliser Act) 1994, BGBl. 1994/513.

Other references

CEPI (2000) Inquiry on Pulp and Paper Sludges, April 2000, Survey carried out as part of thisproject by SEDE through CEPI (Confederation of European Paper Industries), Brussels.

Umweltbundesamt (1997) State of the Environment in Austria, Federal Environment Agency –Austria, Vienna.

Umweltbundesamt (1996) Umweltsituation in Österreich – Vierter Umweltkontrollbericht desBundesministers für Umwelt an den Nationalrat, Teil A (State of the Environment in Austria –4th Environmental Control Report from the Minister of the Environment to the NationalAssembly, Part A), Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Vienna.

Umweltbundesamt (1994) State of the Environment in Austria, Federal Environment Agency –Austria, Vienna.

Rech (2000) Information (in German) provided by Dipl. Ing. Thomas Rech, SektionLandwirtschaft (Department of Agriculture), Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft,Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft (Federal ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment andWater Management), Vienna.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

124

CONTACTS

SC Dr. L. Zahrer, Head of Waste Department, Sektion Umwelt (Environment Division),Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft (Federalministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management), Vienna.

Dipl. Ing. Thomas Rech, Sektion Landwirtschaft (Agriculture Division), Bundesministerium fürLand- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft (Federal ministry of Agriculture,Forestry, Environment and Water Management), Vienna.

Mag. Ermer, Abteilung Recht, Sektion Landwirtschaft (Department of Legislation, AgricultureDivision), Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft(Federal ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management), Vienna.

Dipl. Ing. Claudia Koreimann, Abteilung Internationale Wasserwirtschaft (Department ofInternational Water Management), Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umweltund Wasserwirtschaft (Federal ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and WaterManagement), Vienna.

Mag. Werner Hennlich, Verbindungsstelle der Bundesländer (Co-ordination Centre for theFederal States), Vienna.

Amt Niederösterreichische Landesverwaltung.

Umweltbundesamt (Federal Environment Agency) website: www.ubavie.gv.at.

Dr Zetti, Austropapier (through CEPI survey).

http://www.ubavie.gv.at/


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

125

APPENDIX B BELGIUM

SUMMARY

In Belgium, the recycling of waste materials to land is regulated at the regional and federallevels. A waste producer has to submit a detailed report to the administration in order toreceive an exemption from licensing for landspreading of waste materials to land.

The landspreading of industrial waste is covered under the same law and regulations as thelandspreading of urban sewage sludge. There is no strict control on the spreading of animalmanure in the Walloon region apart from complying with the EC Directives on nitrate, surfacewater and ground water protection. On the other hand in the Flemish region there arestringent limits on the quantity of nitrogen and phosphorus spread per hectare.

The recycling in agriculture of industrial waste is mainly carried out by contractors who areresponsible for transport, contact with farmers, spreading and reporting to the differentadministrations.

It is estimated that about 320,000 tonnes (dry weight basis) of industrial waste are recycled inagriculture. The most important part of the production of industrial waste recycled inagriculture is generated from the food and paper industries. In addition, about 308 milliontonnes of nitrogen and 124 million tonnes of phosphorus (expressed as P2O5) are recycled toland through animal manures.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

126


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

127

B1 LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

Responsible parties

Belgium has a Federal structure. The Federal State of Belgium is divided into 3 regions.

• the Flemish Region;

• the Walloon Region; and

• the Region of Brussels.

There is almost no agricultural activity in the region of Brussels, so it will not be taken intoaccount in this report.

In Belgium the recycling in agriculture of industrial waste is controlled at the Federal andRegional level as presented below:

1. The Flemish and Walloon Regional Administration for Environment are responsible formonitoring compliance with regional regulations for the environmental quality of industrialwaste. The Regional Administration issues authorisation for recycling waste material toland.

2. The Federal Administration (Ministry of Agriculture) is responsible for controlling rawmaterials used in agriculture (fertiliser, product plant protection, soil conditioner as well asindustrial by-product spread in agriculture). The Federal Administration issues exemption.

Regional Ministryof Environment

Federal Ministryof Agriculture

Regional Ministryof Environmental

WALLOONREGION

FLEMISH REGION

Authorisation

Administration forthe control of raw

material

ExemptionAuthorisation

RegionalAdministration for

EnvironmentOVAM

RegionalAdministration for

EnvironmentDGRNE


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

128

Control on farm waste landspreading

The regulation concerning livestock manure is very different between the Flemish and theWalloon region.

Flemish region

During the last 40 years, the livestock population in the Flemish Region has considerablyincreased, more specifically in the pig and poultry sector. This has lead to a great unbalancedsituation between the manure production and their potential beneficial utilisation on farm landand has had negative impacts on soil, surface and groundwater quality.

The Flemish government has to take strong measures and has introduced regulation onmanures input. The latest edition was published in 2000 and is called “MESTACTIEPLAN II”.This new regulation creates a strong competition between industrial waste and livestockmanure. It has not given rise to an increase transfer of livestock manure between the Flemishand Walloon region.

The main points of this new regulation are:

• Maximum fertilising input: the annual global input of nitrogen and phosphorus per ha (bothmineral and organic) has to comply with limit set in Table B1. When industrial wastecontaining nitrogen and phosphorus is recycled to land, it is assimilated to livestockmanure and has to comply with the same regulation.

Table B1 Maximum nutrient input outside vulnerable areas (kg per ha)

Manure P2O5 Total Nitrogen Nitrogen livestockmanure and other

fertilisations

Nitrogen out ofchemical

fertilisation

1999 2000 2001-

2002

2003 1999 2000 2001-

2002

2003 1999 2000 2001-

2002

2003 1999 2000 2001-

2002

2003

Grassland 164 150 140 130 444 450 450 500 444 400 325 250 250 300 350 350

Corn 144 140 120 100 319 300 275 275 319 300 275 250 194 175 150 150

Cultureswith low Ninput(*)

119 125 100 100 164 150 125 125 164 150 125 125 119 100 100 100

Othercultures

144 130 110 100 319 300 275 275 319 300 225 200 219 200 200 200

(*) cultures with a low need for nitrogen : chicory, all kinds of fruit, shallots, onions, flax, butterfly flowerand carrots

• Each transport of manure has to be recorded by the administration and the producer hasto establish a annual balance of this manure disposal. On the other hand, the farmer whoreceives the manure has also to make an annual balance for the different fertilising use onhis farm.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

129

• Spreading period: In order to reduce nitrate and phosphorus leaching and runoff duringthe period when the uptake by the crops is limited, the spreading of manure is forbiddenbetween 21 September and 15 February. Some exceptions are possible for manure with adry solid content higher than 20 %.

• Obligation of treatment: The farmer who has a manure production higher than 10,000 kgP2O5 have the obligation to treat an important part of his production and to find a solutionfor the by-product coming from outside the Flemish agriculture (other utilisation orexportation). It is expected that big scale measure treatment unit will be available withinone or two years.

Walloon region

The situation concerning livestock manure is completely different in the Walloon region wherethe development of the pig and poultry sector is limited. The sector is mainly constituted bymilk and meat production (cattle). For this reason there is no stringent regulation on thespreading of livestock manure. The only regulation is based on the EC Nitrates Directive andcode of good practice.

Control on industrial waste landspreading

In the Flemish and the Walloon region, the regulations concerning the industrial waste are thesame as the regulations concerning the urban sewage sludge.

The producer of the waste must receive a Regional and Federal licence before being allowedto reuse the industrial waste in agriculture. In order to get a complete waste licence a period of6 months is required. The Regional and Federal administrations have a soft approach on therecycling operation.

The regional regulations for each region which apply to recycling of industrial waste to landare:

• Flemish region: the VLAREA II and

• Walloon region: the AGW of 12/01/95 (it is expected that this regulation will be reviewed in2001)

These two regulations include a maximum allowed value for heavy metal and organic micro-pollutants as well as obligations concerning the control of the recycling operation (spreadingrate, information to the farmer, reporting, soil analysis, etc.).

The quality of any materials used in agriculture (fertiliser, product plant protection, soilconditioner as well as industrial by-product spread in agriculture) are regulated under THERoyal Decree of 7th January 1998.

Before starting the recycling of industrial waste in agriculture, the producer of the waste has togive a report to the regional administration including the following points :

• the annual production of the waste;


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

130

• the quality of the waste (analysis on environmental parameters); and

• a description of the production process of the waste including details concerning the usedraw materials and analysis.

The Regional Administration will issue a waste licence specifying the landspreadingconditions. The report on waste given to the Regional Administration will also be analysed bythe Federal Administration for the Inspection of Raw Materials mainly on agronomicparameters. The Federal Administration will deliver an exemption if the industrial waste has asufficient agronomic value.

Other regulations

There are a number of regulations which have an indirect effect on industrial waste disposal.

• The Nitrates EC directive

• The different regulations concerning the protection of surface and groundwater

• The regulation which forbids the disposal of organic waste in landfill

• The regulation concerning waste incineration.

The two last regulations have a direct influence on the price or on the feasibility of landfilldisposal and incineration.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

131

B2 QUANTITIES OF WASTE RECYCLED TO LAND

Farm animal wastes

As specified before, there is a great difference between the Flemish and the Walloon regionconcerning livestock manure production. The livestock waste production has been expressedin terms of nitrogen and phosphorus production rather than quantity of slurry or manureproduced. It is estimated that around 308 million tonnes of nitrogen and 124 million tonnes ofphosphorus are produced annually by livestock (Table B2). The detailed calculation ispresented in Table B3. It is estimated that the total quantities of animal manure produced inBelgium amount to 20 million tonnes (fresh weight) based on yield coefficient presented inTable B4 below.

Until the end of 1999, it could be considered that all the livestock waste was reused inagriculture, but since the introduction of the new regulation in the Flemish region, it isexpected that an important quantity of the waste is being treated and is not spread on the farmland anymore.

Table B2 Quantity of nitrogen and phosphorus produced in livestock waste (1999)

Animal type Quantity of nitrogen(x106 t/annum)

Quantity ofphosphorous

(x 106 t P2O5/annum)

Cattle 198 64.2

Pig 85.5 46.4

Chicken 24.3 13.5

Total 307.8 124.1


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

132

Table B3 Detailed calculation of nutrient production from livestock in Belgium

Flemish Region Walloon Region1999

Numberof animal

Annual production(x106t/y)

Numberof animal

Annual production(x106t/y)

Animal type P2O5 N P2O5 N

CATTLE

≤≤≤≤1 year

Veal 167,986 0.6 1.76 2,501 0.009 0.026

Other male 133,603 1.16 3.07 160,650 1.4 3.69

Other female 244,504 2.44 8.07 267,624 2.68 8.83

1 ≤≤≤≤ 2 years

Male 113,442 2.5 6.92 73,329 1.61 4.47

Female 30,058 0.66 1.83 3,653 0.8 0.22

Heifer 193,348 3.29 10.83 214,659 3.65 12.02

≥≥≥≥ 2 years

Male 24,582 0.72 1.89 19,157 0.56 1.47

Heifer 84,942 2.5 6.54 136,351 4.02 10.5

Dairy cow 333,395 10 32.34 274,192 8.22 26.6

Suckler 185,003 5.55 17.94 325,274 9.76 31.55

Beef Cow 73,685 2.17 5.67 22,753 0.67 1.75

Sub-Total 1 1,584,548 31.61 96.88 1,500,143 3.27 101.14

PIGS

≤ 20 kg 2,135,011 4.31 5.25 72,650 0.15 0.18

20 ≤ 50 kg 1,725,540 11.21 22.43 100,456 0.65 1.3

≥ 50 kg 2,766,948 17.98 35.97 127,212 0.83 1.65

For breeding (≥≥≥≥ 50kg)

Male 14,274 0.21 0.34 1,090 0.016 0.026

Female 541,485 7.85 12.99 25,221 0.36 0.60

Gilt 179,585 2.6 4.31 6,986 0.10 0.17

For reforming 8,845 0.13 0.21 322 0.005 0.008

Sub-Total 2 7,371,688 44.3 81.51 333,937 2.11 3.94

POULTRY

Chicken 21,851,234 6.34 13.55 2,350,843 0.68 1.46

Laying hens 11,376,411 5.57 7.85 788,338 0.39 0.54

Other 2,817,627 0.51 0.87 129,607 0.023 0.040

Sub-Total 3 36,045,272 3,268,788


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

133

Table B4 Estimated quantities of animal waste produced annually in Belgium (1999basis)

Animal type Number(x103)

Yield(l/week)

Total(x103 tonnes per year)

Cattle

Less than 1 year 546 80 2 272

Between 1and 2 years 337 140 2 453

More than 2 years:

Male/heifer 109 250 1 417

Dairy cow 333 315 5 454

Other cow 259 280 3 766

Pigs

Less than 20 kg 2 135 15 1 665

Fattening pig at least 20 kg 4 501 30 7 022

Breeding pig 193 60 604

Covered sows 541 100 2 816

Poultry

Broiler 24,669 0.2 256

Laying hens 11 376 1.1 650

Total 19 851

Industrial wastes

In 1999, for the Flemish and Walloon regions combined, the total quantities of the industrialwaste reused in agriculture, excluding sewage sludge and animal manures, were estimated toamount to about 320,000 tonnes of dry solids per annum (Table B5). In most cases the globalwaste production per sector was not available. The main sectors relying on the agriculturaloutlet are listed below:

• food industry (brewery, sugar, dairy);

• paper industry and

• basic organic chemical industry (gelatine)


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

134

Table B5 Quantities of industrial wastes recycled to land and to other outlets

Waste type Quantity recycled to land(x103 tds/annum)

Other disposal options(x103 tds/annum)

Rendering and slaughtering 3 -

Meat, fish and other foodfrom animal origin

2 NA

Vegetable waste 3 -

Sugar processing 200 -

Dairy industry 2 -

Baking and confectioneryindustry

NA NA

Soft drink 0.2 -

Brewery, distillery 10.5 -

Wood processing NA NA

Pulp and paper 51 39.4

Leather and tannery waste 0.3 NA

Textile 0.2 NA

Basic organic chemicalindustry

18 -

Pharmaceutical industry NA NA

Power industry 0.4 NA

Iron and steel industry NA NA

Cement and lime 20 70

Drinking water preparation 6 14

Dredgings NA NA

Total 316.6 123.4

NA not available

Renderings and slaughtering

The waste sludge produced by this activity is mainly spread on farm land. The stomachcontent of cattle is mainly composted before being reused in agriculture or in on otherbeneficial route.

Meat, fish or other food animal origin preparation and processing

The sludge arising from water treatment is re-used in agriculture. The other waste (meatwaste, bone, fat) is reused in other industries, such as the gelatine or fat industry.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

135

Vegetables, fruit, cereals, edible oils

In this sector the greatest part of the produced waste, used on land, originates from vegetableand potatoes processing and is constituted of sludge. A lot of other wastes of this sector areused in animal feed (vegetable waste, oil production rest and in the production of organicfertilisers (cacao by-product).

Sugar processing

The sugar industry produces large volumes of waste which can also be considered as by-product or co-product (pulp, calcium sugar waste, soil). The lime sugar waste as well as thesoil waste is reused on farm land following a very strong market organisation.

Dairy industry

The sludge arising from water treatment plant is recycled to agriculture.

Soft drink

The sludge arising from water treatment plant is recycled to agriculture.

Brewery and distillery

All the sludge arising from the waste water treatment plant is spread in agriculture. The otherwaste produced by this sector is mainly reused in the animal feed industry.

Wood processing

The waste arising from the wood industry is not reused in agriculture except bark, which canbe used to produce compost.

Pulp and paper

The Belgian paper industry produces 58,544 tonnes (dry solids) of sludge from the productionof pulp (25 000 tonnes ds) and paper (33,544 tds) which 88% is reused in agriculture and 12%incinerated. There is no recycling to land of the 14,500 tonnes (ds) of de-inking sludge whichare landfilled and of the 17,450 tonnes (ds) of other waste which are re-used in brick industry.

Basis organic chemical industry

This sector produces an important quantity of waste constituted by treated sludge comingfrom the production of gelatine.

Cement lime

The cement industry produces no waste. The lime producer produces a large quantity ofcalcium carbonate waste which, in some cases, is reused in agriculture. An importantproducer of lime waste used in agriculture is tile production.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

136


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

137

B3 PROPERTIES OF WASTE SPREAD ON LAND

The data on quality of waste other than livestock waste were obtained from the analysis ofindustrial waste materials carried out by SEDE Benelux in the context of their landspreadingactivities. It provides a good indication of the composition of the material currently recycled toland in Belgium.

Livestock waste

Table B6 Typical nutrient content in animal waste in Belgium

1999 Nutrient content (kg/animal)

Animal type P2O5 N

CATTLE

≤1 year

Veal 3.6 10.5

Other male cattle 8.7 23

Other female cattle 10 33

1 ≤ 2 years

Male 22 61

Female 22 61

Heifer 17 56

≥ 2 years

Male 29.5 77

Heifer 29.5 77

Dairy cow 30 97

Suckler 30 97

Beef Cow 29.5 77

PIGS

≤ 20 kg 2.02 2.46

20 ≤ 50 kg 6.5 13

≥ 50 kg 6.5 13

For breeding (≥ 50kg)

Male 14.5 24

Female 14.5 24

Gilt 14.5 24

For reforming 14.5 24

POULTRY

Chicken 0.29 0.62

Laying hens 0.49 0.69

Other 0.18 0.31


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

138

Basic organic chemical industry

Table B7 Typical composition of waste from gelatine production (SEDE Benelux,pers. comm. 2000)

Parameter Number ofsamples

Min(mg/kg ds)

Max(mg/kg ds)

Mean(mg/kg ds)

pH 83 7.2 12.6 11.8

MS 83 22 69 44

MO 83 142 631 300

Tot N 83 7.4 75 28.1

N-min 80 0.012 12.9 28.1

CaO 83 171 446 338

P2O5 83 10 66 27

K2O 83 0.22 14.5 2

MgO 83 1.3 19.8 6.5

Cd 27 0.7 2.5 1.3

Cu 27 4.1 45.3 17

Ni 27 1 39 13.6

Pb 27 1.9 22 11.9

Zn 27 92 1178 411

Hg 27 0 10 1.3

Cr 27 6.3 37.5 14.3


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

139

Waterworks

Table B8 Typical composition of waterworks sludge (SEDE Benelux, pers. comm.2000)


Min(mg/kg ds)

Max(mg/kg ds)

Mean(mg/kg ds)

pH 12 8.1 10.5 9

MS 13 12 89 50

MO 12 32 771 247

Tot N 12 1 35 7

N-min 11 0.04 10.4 2.04

CaO 12 200 494 403

P2O5 12 1.7 58.2 13.2

K2O 12 0.3 8.4 2.1

MgO 12 1.1 25.3 9.1

Cd 13 0.1 1.9 1.1

Cu 13 7.5 81.1 25

Ni 13 10 32 18

Pb 13 10 32 14

Zn 13 29 284 123

Hg 13 0.1 0.5 0.2

Cr 13 6 26 16


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

140

Lime industry

Table B9 Typical composition of lime waste (SEDE Benelux, pers. comm. 2000)


Min(mg/kg ds)

Max(mg/kg ds)

Mean(mg/kg ds)

pH 34 7.4 11.1 8.3

DS 34 41 93 74

DO 34 8.8 130 52

Tot N 34 0.2 4.9 0.8

N-min 10 0.02 2.9 0.7

CaO 34 251 535 399

P2O5 34 0.1 2.9 0.5

K2O 32 0.11 1.3 0.3

MgO 34 3.7 27.9 8.8

Cd 27 0.1 2.3 0.9

Cu 27 1.2 28.4 11.7

Ni 27 0.1 35.3 6.7

Pb 27 2 20 8

Zn 27 14 105 42

Hg 27 0 0.5 0.1

Cr 27 1.4 24.2 8.8


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

141

Meat industry

Table B10 Typical composition of abattoir waste (SEDE Benelux, pers. comm. 2000)


Min(mg/kg ds)

Max(mg/kg ds)

Mean(mg/kg ds)

pH 16 6.1 8.4 6.5

MS 15 4 27 14

MO 15 779 935 838

Tot N 15 14 128 81

N-min 15 1.1 20.6 9.1

CaO 15 12 83 36

P2O5 15 4.8 78 39

K2O 15 2.1 15 9.1

MgO 15 0.5 13 3.3

Cd 16 0.1 1 0.7

Cu 16 5 173 90

Ni 16 8.9 36 16

Pb 16 3.2 44 13

Zn 16 57 643 410

Hg 16 0.03 0.6 0.2

Cr 16 5 71 31


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

142

Tannery industry

Table B11 Typical composition of tannery waste (SEDE Benelux, pers. comm. 2000)


Min(mg/kg ds)

Max(mg/kg ds)

Mean(mg/kg ds)

pH 3 7.1 7.1 7.1

MS 3 7.7 9 8.2

MO 3 534 559 544

Tot N 3 4.1 4.5 4.3

N-min - - - -

CaO 3 150 168 160

P2O5 3 4.4 5.7 5.2

K2O 3 1.1 1.4 1.3

MgO 3 0.38 0.41 0.39

Cd 3 0.05 0.1 0.08

Cu 3 17 20 18

Ni 3 1.2 1.9 1.6

Pb 3 3.5 8.2 6.3

Zn 3 38 45 41

Hg 3 0.05 0.07 0.06

Cr 3 18 20 19


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

143

Vegetable industry

Table B12 Typical composition of vegetable waste (SEDE Benelux, pers. comm.2000)


Min(mg/kg ds)

Max(mg/kg ds)

Mean(mg/kg ds)

pH 7 6.5 10 8.3

MS 7 0.8 11 4.4

MO 7 403 772 596

Tot N 7 52 122 72

N-min 4 3.7 5.9 5

CaO 7 23 400 112

P2O5 7 24 53 37

K2O 7 4.2 140 74

MgO 7 6.2 14 11

Cd 7 0.7 1.6 1

Cu 7 41 50 46

Ni 7 13 46 21

Pb 7 5.4 47 18

Zn 7 162 348 239

Hg 7 0.04 0.2 0.09

Cr 7 19 122 46


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

144

Dairy industry

Table B13 Typical composition of dairy waste (SEDE Benelux, pers. comm. 2000)


Min(mg/kg ds)

Max(mg/kg ds)

Mean(mg/kg ds)

pH 44 4.9 13 8.6

MS 45 1.7 40 14

MO 43 53 1625 668

Tot N 44 2.3 92 40

N-min 23 0.2 113 11

CaO 44 26 565 170

P2O5 44 1.1 112 36

K2O 42 0.1 19 2.9

MgO 44 2.1 14 6

Cd 43 0.01 8.7 0.9

Cu 43 0.1 257 50

Ni 43 0.1 66 17

Pb 43 0.1 143 13

Zn 43 2.7 1046 186

Hg 43 0.02 1.5 0.3

Cr 43 0.05 90 28


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

145

Soft drink industry

Table B14 Typical composition of waste resulting from the preparation of soft drinks(SEDE Benelux, pers. comm. 2000)


Min(mg/kg ds)

Max(mg/kg ds)

Mean(mg/kg ds)

pH 15 5.7 12 9.8

MS 15 0.8 30 19

MO 15 270 844 461

Tot N 15 15 83 41

N-min 15 1.2 12 3.9

CaO 15 30 407 262

P2O5 15 13 67 24

K2O 15 1.9 9.8 4.6

MgO 15 3.1 7.2 4.7

Cd 13 1 1.3 1.1

Cu 13 16 252 40

Ni 13 10 37 20

Pb 13 10 35 14

Zn 13 84 541 178

Hg 13 0.1 0.2 0.1

Cr 13 13 123 57


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

146

Paper industry

The information on quality of paper sludge was provided by SEDE (Table B15) and byCOBELPA (Table B16).

Table B15 Typical composition of paper sludge (SEDE Benelux, pers. comm. 2000)


Min(mg/kg ds)

Max(mg/kg ds)

Mean(mg/kg ds)

pH 24 4.5 7.7 7

MS 27 19 40 30

MO 24 191 904 639

Tot N 24 5.8 49 18

N-min 24 0.3 12 4

CaO 24 5.2 174 52

P2O5 24 1.9 80 13

K2O 24 0.6 7.9 1.9

MgO 24 0.8 6.9 2.6

Cd 27 1 4.4 2.2

Cu 27 19 243 79

Ni 27 10 29 18

Pb 27 5 83 22

Zn 27 45 330 205

Hg 27 0.1 1.4 0.3

Cr 27 13 1165 80

Table B16 Typical composition of paper sludge (COBELPA, pers. comm. 2000)


Min(mg/kg ds)

Max(mg/kg ds)

Mean(mg/kg ds)

pH 21 5.9 12.5 7

MS (%) 21 20 55 30

C/N 9 30 40 35

Tot N 21 0.1 1 0.5

P2O5 21 0.06 0.3 0.1

K2O 21 0.001 0.02 0.008

Zn 21 50 350 120

Cu 21 15 95 50

Ni 21 5 20 11

Cd 21 0.6 1.9 1.1

Cr 21 5 150 30

Pb 21 7 160 30

As 21 1 6 3


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

147

B4 CONTACTS

Name Organisation

Mr Marchal/Mr Houins Federal Administration for Agriculture

Mr Defoux DGRNE, Regional Authority for Environment (Wallonia)

Mr Petit OWD, Regional Authority for Waste (Wallonia)

Dhr Debruyne OVAM, Regional Authority for Environment (Flanders)

Mr De Muynck COBELPA, Belgian Paper Federation

Mr Boch FEVIA, Belgian Food Federation


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

148


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

149

APPENDIX C DENMARK

SUMMARY

In Denmark, there is a policy of recycling to land organic residues from household, agricultureand industry. All animal manures and a minor part of industrial wastes are currently applied toland.

The landspreading of industrial waste falls under the same regulations as the sewage sludgeapplication to land and industries are required to submit detailed information on quantities andquality of the waste. Summary reports are produced annually by the Danish EnvironmentalProtection Agency. Farmers are also required to report on farm waste. Summary reports onthis information is produced annually by the Danish Plant Directorate.

The regional and local authorities are the main bodies responsible for enforcing environmentallegislation in Denmark. The regional authorities supervise the authorisation for application ofindustrial waste to land and the local authorities monitor compliance. The DanishEnvironmental Protection Agency has a supervisory and reporting role. For farm waste, theresponsible authorities are the Danish Plant Directorate and the local authorities.

The liability/responsibility for landspreading of waste lies with the waste producer even when asubcontractor is hired to conduct the actual landspreading. Liability/responsibility for the wasteis normally transferred from the waste producer to the farmer after spreading, in accordancewith their mutual agreement. Farmers have to maintain detailed annual fertiliser budgets andensure a balance of inputs and outputs.

In 1997/98, about 200,000 tonnes on a dry weight basis of industrial wastes were recycled toland in Denmark. In addition, it is estimated that more than 4 million tds of animal manure andslurry are recycled to land. In comparison, 7,555 tds of sewage sludge and 5,752 tds ofhousehold wastes were also recycled to land.

The quantities of industrial organic waste disposed of to landfill have declined since theintroduction of a landfill tax diverting waste to agriculture. However, landspreading of wastes islikely to decrease because of legislation introduced in 1999 which prohibits the spreading ofliquid waste during the winter months and sets more stringent requirements to the quality ofthe waste. In addition, there is increasing resistance from some farmers to accept sewagesludge and other industrial waste because the growing of food to organic standards.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

150


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

151

C1 LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

In Denmark, landspreading of waste is well regulated. Legislation has been in force for anumber of years and is continuously being reviewed. Industrial and farm wastes are coveredby different pieces of legislation as presented below.

Controls on the landspreading of farm waste

Landspreading of farm waste is controlled by the Statutory Order No. 755 of 30 September1999 on Professional Livestock, Livestock Manure, Silage etc. (SO 1999/755) and theStatutory Order No. 523 of 8 July 1998 on Agricultural Use of Manure and on Plant Cover (SO1998/523). The former sets out the rules on the application of manure to land and the lattersets out the rules determining the nitrogen requirements of the soil.

Responsible parties

The Danish Plant Directorate and the local authorities are responsible for enforcing farmwaste regulations in Denmark. The Danish Plant Directorate monitors compliance with Ordersby controlling the manure plans sent in by farmers and conducting controls on farms.Approximately 2,000 to 3,000 physical controls on farms are conducted each year. The localauthorities supervise the storage and spreading of farm waste.

Livestock density rules

The structural development and the specialisation of Danish farming this century haveresulted in an imbalance between the amount of manure produced and the available landarea to spread the manure. As a consequence rules on livestock density were introduced bythe 1998 Statutory Order on Professional Livestock, Livestock Manure, Silage etc. Theserules apply to any area on which farm waste is applied. Land areas where the livestockdensity rules are excluded from individual farms’ nutrient management plans are leased outareas, areas without manuring need and areas where waste spreading is not allowed. Tenantland is included.

The livestock density rules impose restrictions on the quantity of farm waste to be spreadthrough restrictions on the maximum allowable animal units per hectare and per year (TableC1). One animal unit corresponds to the production of 100 kg nitrogen per year.

When a farm cannot comply with the restrictions set under the livestock density rules, theremust be a farm waste agreement securing the sale of the waste to another farm or to a biogasplant. Farm waste can then be subtracted from the manure plan but only if the receiving farmis registered with the Danish Plant Directorate.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

152

Table C1 Maximum allowable animal units per hectare and per year under thelivestock density rules

Farm type No of animal units per hectare and per year

Cattle1 2.1 (2.33)

Pigs2 1.7

Other animals 2.0

Farms without animals 1.7Notes:

1 At least 2/3 of the animal units are cattle.2 At least 2/3 of the animal units are pigs.3 More than 70% of the land must be planted with beet, grass.

The farm waste agreement must contain the following information:

1. Name, address and VAT number of the two farms involved;

2. Type and quantity of the manure or slurry;

3. The corresponding animal units and hectares to the manure delivered; and

4. The duration of the deal.

The responsibility for the manure during the transport between the two farms and duringspreading is agreed between the two farmers.

Other organic waste

If a farmer spreads industrial waste on his land, the nutrient management plan must be alteredaccordingly. The percentages for different types of industrial organic waste which must beincluded in the plan are shown in Table C2. Additionally, the farmer must be able to provide adeclaration from the industrial waste producer specifying the quantity and nitrogen content ofthe waste provided.

Table C2 Percentage of nitrogen from other organic waste types that must beincluded in nutrient plans

Industrial waste type Plan period 98/99 Plan period 99/00

Sewage sludge 30 (10) 30

Composted household waste 10 (10) 10

Potato fruit juice 50 50

Juice from the pressing into granules ofvegetable waste

25 (10) 40

Others 30 (10) 30 (10)Note: The figures in brackets are the percentages for the waste the year before to be subtracted in

the current plan period.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

153

Registered activities

The Danish Plant Directorate administers a register of agricultural premises. All agriculturalpremises required to register with the Danish Plant Directorate are also required to draw up anutrient management plan consisting of a crop plan, a manure plan and a manurestatement/budget. The manure statement is sent to the Danish Plant Directorate. The cropplan and the manure plan must be readily available on the farm and forwarded to theDirectorate if requested.

A premise (arable, livestock farm, with forestry or a combination of those) must register if ithas:

• an animal stock of more than 10 animal units; or

• an animal density of more than 1.0 animal unit per hectare; or

• apply more than 25 tonnes per year of animal manure or other organic waste.

Additionally, if a premise is not strictly recorded as a farming premise but has an annualturnover of more than DKr 20,000 (~Euro 2,700), it must register.

Agricultural premises that are not required to join the register are free to enter. If anagricultural premise is registered it is exempt from a fertiliser tax of DKr 5 per tonne.

Controls on the landspreading of industrial waste

The recycling of industrial waste to land is governed by the Statutory Order No. 49 of 20January 2000 on Application of Waste Products for Agricultural Purposes (SO 2000/49). ThisOrder came into force on 2 February 2000. It replaces Statutory Order No. 823 of 16September 1996 on Application of Waste Products for Agricultural Purposes (SO 1996/823).The Order implements the 86/278/EEC Sludge Directive and is known as the Sludge Order.

The Order applies to waste from private households, institutions and enterprises, includingcomposted waste, process wastewater and sewage sludge, whenever these wastes aresuitable for agricultural purposes and do not contain significant quantities of substancespresenting hazards to the environment.

The Order does not apply to composted and non-composted green waste from gardens andparks or products/waste covered by the Order on Professional Livestock, Livestock Manure,Ensilage etc (SO 1998/523). Additionally, the provisions made in the Sludge Order do notapply when they conflict with rules issued by the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries onthe prevention and control of livestock diseases.

Responsible parties

The Danish EPA has the overall responsibility for enforcing the Sludge Order. However, itsinvolvement is limited to grant derogation from the provisions of the Sludge Order and to dealwith complaints against decisions of the local and regional councils.

The day to day control is performed by the regional and the local authorities. The regionalauthorities check the information supplied by the waste producer before landspreading and


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

154

issue authorisation when required. The local authorities monitor compliance with the SludgeOrder and with conditions specified in the authorisation for the storage and application ofwaste products.

When the storage or landspreading of the waste has caused or may cause significantnuisance or pollution, the regulatory authority (regional council or local authority) can orderremedial measures to be taken and they can ban the use of the waste on land.

Approval of waste products for recycling to land

The Sludge Order (SO 2000/49) contains a list of waste products (see Table C3), which havealready been approved as products of agricultural value and do therefore not requireauthorisation for landspreading from the regional council. Under Section 21 of the SludgeOrder the regional council can approve waste products which are not included on the list.Additionally, prior to landspreading of waste in forests the regional council must be consultedand an authorisation must be issued before landspreading can take place. For Section 21wastes and for waste spread in forestry, the council can in its authorisation stipulate morestringent requirements than those applying under the Sludge Order; lay down supplementaryconditions; and decide that such waste must not be used in specified areas. Permits grantedunder Section 21 can be changed or withdrawn at any time by the regional council withoutcompensation.

Table C3 Exempt waste from authorisation under the Sludge Order

A) Sludge and effluents, and unpolluted residues of products from the processing ofvegetable raw materials, and from dairies.

B) Sludge etc. from fish farming.

- sludge from freshwater fish farms and sludge and effluent from recycling plants forfish rearing.

- sludge from fish farms pumping in water.

C) Sludge etc. from the processing of animal raw materials.

- sludge from wastewater treatment plants at abattoirs.

- sludge from wastewater treatment plants in the fish industry.

- sludge from wastewater treatment plants in the fodder production plants.

D) Waste separated at the source, including composted waste, from privatehouseholds, institutions and enterprises.

- food waste, coffee filters, diapers, etc

E) Sewage sludge.

- sewage sludge from municipal sewage treatment plants.

- sewage sludge from private plants for the treatment of domestic sewage.

Waste producers responsibility


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

155

Notification by the waste producer must be given to the regional council in its area no laterthan 8 days prior to the delivery of waste to user. The information which must be provided inthe declaration to the authority is listed in Table C4. If the regional council has decided onspecial conditions, pursuant to section 21, it must be stated in the declaration.

Any waste producer, who makes an agreement about delivery of waste products, isresponsible for ensuring that the declaration accompanies the waste product and that theinformation given is correct. Delivery of waste products must only take place when a directwritten agreement has been made between the waste producer and the user. The agreementmust only cover deliveries intended for agricultural purposes in the coming growing season.When entering into an agreement of delivery, the waste producer must send a copy of theagreement and a map specifying the area where the waste will be spread to the municipalcouncil in the user’s local area. This applies to all waste, even solid waste that is stored on theuser’s land for a certain time before spreading.

Before delivery of a waste product to user, the party delivering the waste product must alsonotify the local council in the user’s local area in writing of the quantity delivered. Thenotification must state the name and address of the user, and be accompanied by thedeclaration and the time of delivery. Such notification must be made no later than 8 daysbefore delivery takes place. This notification duty does not apply to delivery to single users ofquantities below 10 tonnes of dry matter per year.

Before 1 March every year the waste producer must in writing report to the regional councilthe quantities of each waste product supplied for agricultural purposes in the precedingcalendar year, with quantities broken down on agricultural, forestry, horticultural, park, andprivate garden uses. When reporting reference must be made to the declaration worked outfor each of the waste products.

Table C4 Information to be included in the declaration for landspreading of waste

• Waste product, with description of origin and place of production, and reference to thewaste types listed in Table C3;

• Components and proportion of mixture of waste products produced by mixing of severalwaste types;

• Components and proportion of mixture of waste products mixed with manure or soilconditioners;

• Treatment, results of possible analyses, and possible restrictions on use, using thedesignations listed in legislation;

• Results of analysis, as set out in the Order, indicating the time of sampling and analysis;and

• Storage facilities.

Nutrient limit


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

156

The main limiting factors for waste recycled to land is the total amount of nutrients and drysolids that can be applied through organic materials. The Sludge Order 2000/49 hasintroduced phased limits for nitrogen, phosphorus and dry solids (see Table C5).

In addition, there are specific limits for liquid waste which are more prone to cause waterpollution. The total quantity of liquid waste applied to land in one year must not exceed3,000 m3 per hectare. As from 1 October 1999, it is prohibited to apply any liquid wastes tosoil in the period 1 October to 1 February. From 1 February to 1 April, the quantity of liquidwaste products applied to soil must not exceed 1,000 m3 per hectare. Furthermore,application from harvest to 1 October must only take place on established over wintergrassland and on areas where winter rape will be grown the following winter.

The application of waste products must not;

• Take place in such a way and in such areas that by sudden thaw and rainfall the wasteproducts are likely to run off to lakes, water courses or drains;

• Cause pollution of groundwater; or

• Cause significant nuisance or unsanitary conditions.

Table C5 Maximum quantities of nutrients and dry solids recycled to land fromlandspreading of waste (SO 2000/49)

Parameter Unit < 31 Jan 2000 1 Feb 2000 –30 Jun 2000

1 Jul 2000 -31 Jul 2002

> 1 Aug2002

Tot N kg ha-1 y-1 250 210 210 170

Tot P1 kg ha-1 y-1 40 40 30 30

Dry Matter2 t y-1 10 (20) 10 (20) 7 (15) 7 (15)Notes:

1 The phosphorus level is calculated as a three-year average. For forestry land it is as a ten-yearaverage.

2 The dry solids level is based on a 10-year average. Levels in brackets are for application ontoforestry land.

Waste product requirements

Additional requirements on the quality of waste recycled to land are also provided in theSludge Order. Any waste recycled to land must comply with requirements on heavy metalcontent, xenobiotic compound content and microbiological quality. And with the limits forxenobiotic sustances introduced in the 1996 Statutory Order No. 823 (DEPA1997).

For heavy metal content, the waste producer can choose to observe the dry solid-related orthe phosphorus-related limit values (Table C6). For most compounds these limits are morestringent than the current EC limits as specified in the Sludge Directive 86/278/EEC. Regionalcouncils generally allow industries to be exempt from monitoring xenobiotic compounds afteran initial monitoring because of the costs involved (Table C7).

The Order also provide minimum treatment requirements according to types of waste andrestrictions on land uses (Table C8).


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

157

A minimum of 5 samples must be taken and at least 75% must comply with the limit valuesand in no case must any sample exceed the limit value by more than 50%. Where wasteproducts are mixed or mixed with animal manure, representative samples have to be takenbefore mixing.

The samples must be taken and analysed by a laboratory accredited for such purposes.However, the regional council may for financial reasons allow the waste producer to conductthe sampling himself or to conduct both the sampling and analysis himself. The regionalcouncil can also decide that the sampling frequency must increase or decrease.

Analysis results must be forwarded by the laboratory directly to the regulatory authority.Analysis results must be forwarded prior to the first delivery of a waste product. For thefollowing applications of the same waste, analysis results must be forwarded as soon as it isavailable.

Table C6 Limit values for heavy metals in waste recycled to land (SO 1996/823 and2000/49)

Parameter Dry solids basis(mg kg-1 ds)

Total phosphorus basis(mg kg-1 P)

< 30 June 2000 > 1 July 2000

Cadmium 0.8 200 100

Mercury 0.8 200 200

Lead1 120 10,000 10,000

Nickel 30 2,500 2,500

Chromium 100

Zinc 4,000

Copper 1,000Note:

1 For private gardening, the lead value is reduced to 60 mg kg-1 ds or 5000 mg kg-1 P. In addition,a limit for arsenic of 25 mg kg-1 ds must also apply.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

158

Table C7 Limit values for xenobiotic substances (SO 1996/823 and 2000/49)

Parameter Dry solids basis(mg kg-1 ds)

>30 June 2000 1 July 2000 – 30 June2002

<1 July 2002

LAS1 2,600 1,300 1,300

ΣPAH2 6 3 3

NPE3 50 30 10

DEHP4 100 50 50Notes:

1 LAS Linear alkylbenzene sulphonates.2 PAH Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. ΣPAH Acenapthene, phenanthrene, fluorene, pyrene,

benzofluoranthenes, (b+j+k), benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(ghi)perylene, indeno(1, 2, 3-c, d)pyrene3 NPE Nonylphenol (+ethoxylates). NPE comprises the substances nonylphenol and nonylphenolethoxylates

with 1-2 ethoxy groups.4 DEHP Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

159

Table C8 Sanitary application requirements for different waste types (SO 2000/49)

Treatment

Untreated Stabiliseda Controlledcompostingb

Controlledpasteurisationc

A) Sludge etc.fromvegetableproduction

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

B) Sludge etc.from fishfarming

Not for gardening ✓ ✓ ✓

C) Sludge etc.from meatproduction

Not for agriculturalpurposes

Worked into thesoil within 12 hrsafter application.Not for gardening1.

✓ ✓

D) Sourceseparatedwaste


Not for ediblecrops2 orgardening.Worked into thesoil within 12 hrsafter application3.

3 ✓

E) Sewagesludge


Not for ediblecrops orgardening.Worked into4 thesoil within 12 hrsafter application5.

Not for ediblecrops2orgardening5.

✓

Notes:

✓ Can be used without sanitary restrictions.1 The restriction does not apply to stabilisation in biogas plants.2 Edible crops are crops which can be eaten raw excluding fruit tree crops.3 In fields rearing cloven-footed animals, compost shall be applied and worked into the soil before sowing.4 “Working in” means ploughing, harrowing, direct injection or other methods of working waste into the soil.5 In areas where sewage sludge is applied, until one year after last application only cereal or seed crops

grown to maturity can be grown, and grass or the like for industrial dry fodder production. Moreover, ediblecrops may not be grown. For instance potatoes, grass and maize for silage and fodder or sugar beetsmust not be grown.

a Stabilisation is defined as one of the following treatments; anaerobic digestion; aeration;composting without temperature control; addition of lime; 6 months storage.

b Controlled composting is defined as composting with daily temperature measurement to ensuretemperatures in all material not get below 55 °C for no less than two weeks.

c Controlled pasteurisation is defined as one of the following treatments; pasteurisation at 70°Cfor not less than 1 hour; addition of lime, to ensure pH 12 in all material for a minimum of threemonths; thermophilic digestion or a combination of thermophilic or mesophilic digestion. At thetime of delivery advanced treated products must have no occurrence of salmonella and faecalstreptococci must be below 100 g-1


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

160

Soil quality requirements

Land to which wastes are applied must not exceed the heavy metals concentrations specifiedin Table C9 below. Again these limits are more stringent than the limits imposed in the ECSludge Directive 86/278/EEC.

Table C9 Soil quality criteria (SO 1996/823 and 2000/49)

Parameter Heavy metal content(mg kg-1 ds)

Cadmium 0.5

Mercury 0.5

Lead 40

Nickel 15

Chromium 30

Zinc 100

Copper 40

Waste user’s responsibility

Waste products applied to land under the Sludge Order must be used for fertilisation purposesand form part of a nutrient management plan. The user must before 31 March each year,forward changes to crop plans and fertilisation plans as well as a map indicating theapplication areas to the local authorities. The notification duty only applies in cases where theuser receives waste products in amounts that exceed a certain amount each year. Until1 February 2000 this was 5 tons, after 1 February 2000 this is 10 tons.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

161

C2 QUANTITIES OF WASTE RECYCLED TO LAND

The information provided below is extracted from the Environmental Project No. 397 by theDanish EPA (DEPA 1998) for industrial waste and from Manure Statements 1997/98 (DPD1999) and Petersen (1996) for farm waste. The Environmental Project is based onquestionnaires sent out to industries and data from Statistics Denmark, industry organisations,trade unions etc. Not all companies recycling waste to land replied to the questionnaire.

Farm waste

Reporting on farm waste was until 1996/97 based on 30,000 selected farms. For 1997/98survey all farms with more than 10 ha have been included. In total, 62,860 farms wereincluded in the survey. However, only 43,847 forms were used to produce the ManureStatement Report (DPD 1999) as some forms were not returned; some were insufficientlyfilled in; and some farms should not have been contacted.

The Danish farming industry is characterised by a large number of production units with fewemployees. The industry produces waste and by-products which are recycled on the farm orsold to be re-used without prior treatment such as manure, slurry, dead animals and surplusplant material such as straw.

The Danish Plant Directorate has chosen to report amounts of nitrogen produced rather thanquantities of farm waste. The quantity of nitrogen applied to land from all farms surveyed in1997/98 amount to approximately 156,000 tonnes nitrogen (Table C10). The tables do notinclude data for outdoor animals.

In a report from the Danish Environmental Protection Agency (DEPA 1998), it is estimatedthat the volume of animal manure and slurry produced in 1994/95 amounted to over 28 milliontonnes (fresh weight basis), equivalent to over 4 million tonnes of dry solids. All animalmanure is currently recycled to land. The quantity of farm wastes and their application isshown in Table C11 and Figure C1 below.

Most farm wastes are recycled to land untreated. About 5% of animal manures and slurry areanaerobically digested in centralised biogas plants before being recycled to land (Sommerand Moller 1999). The biogas plants often also treat industrial wastes. Anaerobic digestion isconsidered beneficial to the waste as it increases its nutrient content per weight/volume,improves its smell, improves the ease of landspreading etc. Furthermore, income from thesale of biogas is provided. However, the cost of transport of the slurry to the biogas plant isconsiderable compared to the benefits. The use of slurry in biogas production is thereforecentred around the existing biogas plants.

A large part of the straw production in farming is used on the farm. However, more straw isproduced than is required and this is then recycled to land or sold for incineration in districtheating plants. No data has been found on the amount of straw recycled to land. In 1995, theincineration of 110,000 tons of straw (approximately 95,000 tons dry solids) produced1,585 TJ.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

162

Figure C1 Main outlets for livestock/farm waste (DEPA 1998)

Table C10 Nitrogen content in livestock waste in Denmark for 1997/98 (DPD 1999)

Farm waste (tonnes N)Farm type

No. offarms

Area(x103ha) Landspread Produced Bought Sold

Cattle1 15,990 895 75,569 70,404 9,674 4,509

Pigs2 10,461 690 58,215 67,745 6,643 16,183

Arable3 13,535 609 8,920 122 9,028 217

Mixed 3,861 193 13,726 14,652 1,927 2,853

Total 43,847 2,368 156,446 152,938 27,273 23,765Notes:

1 at least 2/3 of the animal units is cattle2 at least 2/3 of the animal units are pigs3 with less than 2 animal units

Table C11 Waste products from farming, 1994/95 (DEPA 1998)

Wasteproducts

Amount(tonnes per year)

Composition Application

Animalmanure

Animal slurry

28,000,000

514,000

Mainly from pigs andcattle

Mainly pig slurry, butalso cattle slurry

Spread on land: 97.4 %

Biogas production then spread onland: 1.8 %

Surplus straw ?

110,000

86% ds Spread on land: ?

Incinerated with heat utilisation: 0.4%

Dead animals 100,000 Mainly pigs and cattle Raw material substitution (feed): 0.4 %

Spread on land

97.4%

Incinerated with heat utilisation

0.4%

Biogas then spread on

land1.8%Raw material

substitution0.4%


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

163

Industrial waste

Information on industrial waste spread on land is available for the years 1995/96, 1996/97 and1997/98 and is published annually by the Danish EPA. The annual reports are based on formssent to regional authorities from industries recycling waste to land. For 1997/98 survey (DEPA2000), 435 forms were received from waste producers but 20% had to be excluded as beinginsufficiently filled in. Data is however representative of the total amount of waste spread onland in Denmark as all of the large producers were included in the report.

Information was reported under the following broad categories:

• Vegetable waste including residues from fruit and vegetable processing, potato flourproduction, sugar beet processing, oil and margarine production, breweries and distilleries;

• Fish and shellfish waste;

• Animal/meat waste including residues from dairies, abattoirs and rendering plants,tanneries;

• Household waste;

• Sewage sludge;

• Section 21 waste including residues from pharmaceutical and fertiliser manufacturers; and

• Unknown waste.

In 1997/98, industrial waste spread on land amounted to more than 3 million tonnes on a wetweight basis equivalent to about 200,000 tonnes of dry solids (Table C 12). In terms of drysolids recycled to land, wastes covered by Section 21 constitute the largest proportion (+/- 60%) while fish waste represent the smallest part with less than 2%. In comparison, 7,555 tdsof sewage sludge and 5,752 tds of household wastes were also recycled to agriculture.

Table C12 Total amounts of industrial waste spread on land, 1998 (DEPA 2000)

Waste category Quantity(tonnes ww)

Dry matter(%)

Quantity(tonnes ds)

%

Vegetable 2,105,866 2.2 47,0261 23.8

Fish farm 150,362 2.1 3,093 1.6

Animal 208,497 8.4 17,4702 8.8

Section 21 713,698 16.6 118,3253 59.8

Unknown 61,742 19.5 12,064 6.0

Total 3,240,165 6.1 197,978 100Notes:

1 Mainly residues from potatoes processing.2 Including 2,350 and 7,800 tds per annum of rendering and abattoir wastes respectively.3 Mainly residues from pharmaceutical and fertiliser manufacturers.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

164

The disposal routes for all organic waste including sewage and household waste according toregions are presented in Table C13. It was not possible to exclude quantities of sewagesludge and household waste. However, sewage sludge (3.6% ds) and household wastes(2.7% ds) represent only a small proportion of the total amount of waste recycled to land.

There are large regional variations in the number of waste producers applying waste to landand in the quantities/volumes of waste applied. For example, in the councils aroundCopenhagen, relatively few waste producers use the option of spreading waste on land.Instead, they discharge their effluent to municipal sewage system and thus are contributing tosewage sludge production. The reason for this is mainly that the cost and environmentaleffects of transporting the waste to farmers is considered too high for this to be an option.

Table C13 Quantity of waste (tonnes dry solids) according to disposal category(DEPA 2000)

County Agriculture Forestry Nursery Parks Privategardens

Others* Unknown

Bornholm 921 2

Frederiksborg 8,279 3 40 1,221

Funen 6,867 34 2,681 168

Copenhagen 1,109

Northern Jutland 11,636 26 5,603 117

Ribe 9,234

Ringkjøbing 31,265 231 105 2,747

Roskilde 7,104

Storstrøm 1,355 37

SouthernJutland

34,724 194 10

Vejle 3,926 122 1,072 108

West Zealand 48,929 98 156

Viborg 8,922 128 1,226

Aarhus 18,702 1,642

DK total 192,974(91.3%)

386(0.2%)

37(0.02%)

355(0.2%)

4,975(2.4%)

8,891(4.2%)

3,128(1.5%)

Note:

* Not applied to land, i.e. disposed of to landfill or sewage treatment plants

For 1998, it was reported that 34% of industrial waste were applied to land without any pre-treatment (Table C14). 38% of waste were treated to high level while 15% had beenstabilised, and less than 2% had been composted. For 11% the pre-treatment was unknown.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

165

Table C14 Pre-treatment according to waste type (tonnes) (DEPA 2000)

Waste type Untreated Stabiliseda Controlledcompostingb

Controlledpasteurisationc

Unknown

Vegetable 36,833 2,861 1,444 5,888

Fish farm 2,784 161 13 135

Meat 2,062 222 15,186 1

Section 21 23,571 24,749 3,328 58,910 7,766

Unknown 1,723 1,550 8,791

Total 66,973(34%)

29,543(15%)

3,328(< 2%)

75,553(38%)

22,581(11%)

Notes:

a Stabilisation is defined as one of the following treatments; anaerobic digestion; aeration; compostingwithout temperature control; addition of lime; 6 months storage.

b Controlled composting is defined as composting with daily temperature measurement to ensuretemperatures in all material not get below 55 °C for no less than two weeks.

c Controlled pasteurisation is defined as one of the following treatments; pasteurisation at 70 °C fornot less than 1 hour; addition of lime, to ensure pH 12 in all material for a minimum of three months;thermophilic digestion or a combination of thermophilic or mesophilic digestion.

The detailed information concerning the different sectors of industry which recycle their land toland is presented below.


In Denmark, the rendering and slaughtering industry consists mainly of pig, cattle and poultryabattoirs. Horse, sheep and goat abattoirs have little effect on the figures.

Several mergers have taken place in the industry over the last 15-20 years. Three largecompanies which conduct 95% of all pig slaughtering in Denmark today dominate the pigabattoir industry. In total, there are 21 large pig abattoirs in Denmark; 19 in Jutland, 1 atSealand and 1 at Bornholm. Additionally, Denmark has 7 cattle and 8 poultry abattoirs withmore than 10 employees. Most of these are located in Jutland.

The slaughtering process starts with the animals being transported by truck to the abattoirwhere they are placed in pens. Normally, the animals spend only a few hours in the pens. Theanimals urinate and defecate in the pens which are subsequently washed down with water.Slaughtering takes place either by shooting or anaesthesia followed by bleeding and cutting,removal of the bowel etc. The animal blood is collected and is re-used.

Approximately 21% of an animal is waste (DEPA 1998). Abattoir wastes can be classified inthree major groups: stomach and bowel content and manure; waste products from theproduction of meat products (blood, bristle, bones, feathers etc.); and waste products from thewaste treatment (grating, fat grating, flotation sludge). Table C 15 summarises the quantitiesand treatment applied to the different waste produced by pig, cattle and poultry abattoirs and


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

166

rendering plants. There are approximately 700,000 tonnes of abattoirs waste (on a wet weightbasis) produced per annum in Denmark.

Most abattoir wastes are re-used or recycled for economic reasons and hard competition inthe industry has resulted in almost all waste products being re-used. A large proportion ofabattoir wastes (75-80%) is used as raw material substitution such as meat and bone mealproduction. There is almost no abattoir organic waste products disposed of to landfill. Wasteproducts that previously were disposed of to landfill are now re-used in biogas plants (17%) orspread on land (5 to 10%).

The re-use of waste products in biogas plants have increased over recent years partlybecause of the establishment of centralised biogas plants which are well qualified for thetreatment of such waste types, and partly because of the introduction of a landfill tax. Wasteproducts treated in biogas plants are exempt from landfill tax if landfilled. Stomach and bowelcontent, manure, slurry, grating products, fat and flotation sludge are mainly re-used in biogasplants. Solids from grating and flotation tanks are also re-used for biogas production. Aproportion of these wastes is spread on land. The decision whether to dispose of abattoirwaste to biogas production or to land depends on the distance between the abattoir and thebiogas plant. At abattoirs without flotation tanks, most of the organic material (80-90%) isdischarged to the municipal wastewater treatment plant. At abattoirs with flotation tanksapproximately 80% of the organic material is retained in the grates and the flotation tanks.

A small amount of aseptic blood is used in consumer goods. Additionally, approximately 7,000tons of feathers are used annually as filling material in household furniture or destroyed forprotein extraction.

In recent years there has been a reduction in quantities of untreated abattoirs waste recycledto land and an increase in quantities of abattoirs waste being treated by anaerobic digestionbefore being spread on land. It is possible that this trend will continue. However, this dependson the establishment of further biogas plants and thereby the reduction in distance betweenabattoirs and biogas plants.

Abattoir waste and by-products are considered to contain only small concentrations ofenvironmentally undesirable substances. The abattoir industry samples waste products usedfor animal foodstuffs while the biogas industry samples flotation sludge and the biogas productfor heavy metals before application to land.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

167

Table C15 Waste products from pig, cattle (1994) and chicken abattoirs (1993) (DEPA1998)

Waste products Amount(tonne per year)

Application

Liquid manure:

Pigs

Cattle

40,000-68,000

7,000-27,000

Solids to biogas plant or spread to land.

Liquid to sewage treatment plant.

Wash water from transporttrucks

45,000 Flotation sludge to biogas plant or spreadon land.

Liquids to sewage treatment plant.

Blood:

Pigs

Cattle

66,000

14,000

Raw material substitution (consistencyregulating substance in consumer goods,animal foodstuff, meat and bone meal)

Bristle and hoof:

Pigs

Cattle

9,000

1,800

Raw material substitution (incinerationplant)

Bones:

Pigs

Cattle

185,000

60,000

Raw material substitution (incinerationplant)

Non-edible parts, heads,feet:

Chicken60,000 Raw material substitution (animal foodstuff)

Bowel content:

Pigs

Cattle

Stomach content:

Pigs

Cattle

49,000-55,000

16,000

8,000-31,000

36,000-72,000

Biogas plant, ploughed in agricultural land,and/or sewage treatment plant

Fat:

Pigs

Cattle

9,000

3,000

Biogas plant

Flotation sludge:

Pigs

Cattle

Chicken

30,000

Not used

20,000

Biogas plant

Biogas plant

Grating:

Pigs

Cattle

900-1,800

Unknown

Biogas plant or spread on land

Feather:

Chicken 7,000 Filling material, house articles or destroyed


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

168

Fish and shellfish processing industry

This section describes Danish fish and shellfish processing industry and fish meal and oilindustry. The fish processing industry is characterised by a large number of small and a fewlarge companies. In 1991, there were 197 fish processing companies in Denmark. Theshellfish processing industry and the fish meal and oil industry is characterised by a few largecompanies. In 1991, there were 18 fish meal and oil companies in Denmark. For the 1998survey, 109 companies were contacted but only 9 replies. The information in the followingsections has been extrapolated from the 9 replies to provide estimates for the entire industry.

In 1992, 539,807 tonnes of fish, shellfish etc. were landed. Shellfish (mainly common mussel)accounted for 136,271 tonnes. In the processing of fish large amounts of waste are producedincluding fish scale, intestines, heads and other fish wastes. The fish meal and oil industry canutilise the main part of the waste products from fish processing except for blood water andflotation sludge from pre-rinsing of fish. Fish meal is produced by boiling, pressing and dryingthe fish. Fish oil is produced by condensating the water from the boiling of the fish. The mainwaste from the fish meal and oil industry is water. Additionally, smaller quantities of oily sludgeis produced. In 1994, the fish meal and oil industry processed 1,525,648 tonnes fish andproduced 127,368 tonnes fish waste. The waste from the processing of shellfish include sand,sludge, shells/mussels, other bottom fish and water. The quantity of fish and shellfish wastefrom fish and shellfish processing industry in 1992 is illustrated in Table C16 below.

The replies from two shellfish companies showed that 20% of their waste products were usedas raw material substitution, less than 1% were used in biogas production followed bylandspreading, 30% were landspread without treatment and 50% were landfilled. In biogasproduction shellfish meat and other fish were used. Sand, sludge, shells and shellfish meatand other fish were spread on land. Waste sent to landfill was sand, sludge, shells andshellfish meat and other fish residues from the rinsing process before boiling.

Data from 2 out of 8 fish meal and oil companies contacted were received. The twocompanies produced 4,250 tonnes sludge which was used for biogas production. Byextrapolating this figure an estimated sludge production for all 8 companies of 7,200 tonneswas calculated. If the dry solids content is estimated to be 10%, the total sludge productionamount to 720 tonnes dry solids. This is similar to earlier estimates.

Economic factors seem to control the use of waste products from the fish processing industryin Denmark. As a consequence most waste products are sold for raw material substitution asprofit can be achieved. The market for waste products from the fish processing industry is to alarge extent controlled by geographical and historical factors. For example in North Jutland,waste products are mainly used in the fish meal and oil industry whereas in West Jutland thewaste products are used as feedstuff. As a result of the economic benefits, it is assumed thatraw material substitution will remain the most popular choice for waste products from the fishprocessing industry.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

169

Table C16 Quantity of fish and shellfish waste, 1992 (DEPA 1998)

Waste product Quantity(tonne per

year)


Fish waste 237,000 Fish scale, fishintestines, fishheads etc.

Raw material substitution (fish mealand oil, fur animal feed)

27,000 Biogas plant followed bylandspreading

Shellfish waste 25,000 Shells/mussels Raw material substitution (firebreak,road material, packing of drainpipes)

13,000 Shellfish meatand other fish

27,000 Sand, graveletc.

25,000 Water Waste water or sewage treatmentplant

Fish meal and oilwaste

7,200 Sludge Biogas plant followed bylandspreading

Total 361,200

Fish processing waste is considered to contain minimal concentrations of environmentallyundesirable substances. The processing does not compromise the quality of residues andtherefore there is no restrictions on land application of fish processing waste. The flotationsludge may contain different precipitation agents which makes it unfit for fish meal and oilproduction. However, the agents are of no concern for biogas production. On the contrary,ferro and aluminium salts are useful for the gas quality as they reduce the content of hydrogensulfide. The precipitation agents contain small quantities of heavy metals. However, thequantities are so low they are not considered to be of concern.

The shellfish processing industry uses their waste products differently. Some companies re-use sludge and shells for landspreading, others uses shells for raw material substitution orlandfill. It is assumed that the re-use of the waste products is controlled by historical andeconomical parameters.

The shellfish industry is very interested in utilising its waste products more efficiently. One ofthe largest companies has therefore started investigating the possibility of producing limepowder from shells. The lime powder would be used in acidic Swedish and Norwegian lakes.The company assesses that if the research project becomes a success all shells from theDanish shellfish industry can be sold with profit. Additionally, the company is looking into usingshellfish meat as feed for pigs. However, there is concern about a possible after-taste in thepigs meat. As a consequence, the company is also looking into using the shellfish meat asfish food.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

170

Fruit and vegetable processing industry

In 1995, there were 78 companies processing fruits and vegetables. The annual amount offruit and vegetable sold in 1992/93 in Denmark is illustrated in Table C17 below.

Table C17 Annual sale of processed fruit and vegetable products, 1992/93 (DEPA1998)

Product Annual sale(tonne per year)

Frozen vegetables (excluding onions) 60,000

Juice and squash 121,000

Jam and marmalade 40,000

Pickled vegetables (red cabbage, beetroot,gherkins, marrow)

18,000

Tomato ketchup and sauce 12,000

Fried or frozen onions 10,000

Total 261,000

In the fruit and vegetable processing industry many raw materials are imported as semi-processed products. For example, strawberries for strawberry porridge and jam are importedas strawberry pulp. The processing of semi-processed products into finished productsproduces very little waste as the production consists of adding water, sugar and preservatives.Wastes produced from fruit processing include fruit, stalks etc. These wastes are used forbiogas production.

Waste products from the production of frozen vegetables, pickled vegetable and frozen onionsinclude peal, tops, pods etc. These waste products are sold mainly as animal feed. A smallquantity of the waste (leek tops) are spread on land. Waste oil resulting from the frying ofonions is used for biogas production. Wastes from the production of juice are limited as mostof it is produced from concentrated juice imported from abroad. One company reported of 40tonnes per year of waste from the production of apple juice. The waste is used as animal feed.Waste products from the production of squash include fruits, stalks, pips etc. is sold as animalfeed. Wastes that cannot be sold as animal feed are landfilled. Tomato ketchup and sauce areproduced from imported concentrate and creates therefore limited waste products.

The disposal routes for waste from the fruit and vegetable processing industry is illustrated inTable C18 below. Part of the waste presently deposited in landfills may be suitable for biogasproduction. However, this must be investigated further.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

171

Table C18 Waste products from the fruit and vegetable industry (DEPA 1998)

Quantity *(wet weight)Application

(tonnes per year) (%)

Quantity*(dry weight)

(tonnes per year)

Raw material substitution 20,000 64 2,000

Biogas plant followed bylandspreading

2,000-3,000 8 1,000-1,500

Landspreading 8,000 26 2,000

Landfill 500-1,000 2 300-600

Total 30,500-32,000 5,300-6,100* Estimates

Potato flour industry

The potato flour industry in Denmark is centred around five companies all located in Jutland.The companies produced in total approximately 180,000 tonnes of potato flour per year fromapproximately 900,000 tonnes of potatoes.

The production of potato flour is seasonal and takes place in the autumn when the potatoesare lifted. The production process includes washing, shredding and extraction of starchfollowed by refining and drying.

The waste products from the production of potato flour are potato pulp, process water andpotato fruit juice. The potato pulp accounts for approximately 16% of the potato and the potatofruit juice for approximately 68%. The process water is in some productions mixed with thepotato fruit juice, making potato fruit water. It depends on the marketing possibilities as thepotato fruit juice can be sold to farmers whereas the potato fruit water is given free of charge.It is estimated that about 2.4 million tonnes of potato fruit juice and water are produced peryear.

Additionally, processes for the extraction of proteins from potato fruit juice has beendeveloped. The processes are based on heat coagulation. It is estimated that approximately3,250 tonnes protein are produced per year. Based on the quantity of potato fruit juiceproduced annually and its dry solids content (4.8%), the quantity of protein in the potato fruitjuice amounts approximately to 20,000 tonnes per year. This means that only 16% of theprotein in the potato fruit juice is currently recovered.

The quantities of waste products from the production of potato flour are shown in Table C19below. The potato pulp is sold to farmers as animal feed while the potato fruit juice and wateris landspread.

Economic factors control to a large extend the use of waste products from the potato flourindustry in Denmark. The potato pulp is sold to farmers as animal feed with profits. The potatofruit juice is also sold to farmers but the cost of transport and landspreading consumes most ofthe profit. Some companies have pipe lines delivering waste to local farmers which reducesthe cost of transport considerably. The potato fruit water is landspread on the farmers land forfree as the benefit for the farmer is limited.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

172

Table C19 Waste products from the potato flour industry (DEPA 1998)

Waste products Quantity(tonne per year)

Application

Potato pulp 200,000 Animal feed

Potato fruit juice 850,000 Spread on land and proteinproduction

Potato fruit water 1,550,000 Spread on land

Total 2,600,000

New regulations prohibiting the spreading of liquid waste from 1 October until 1 February hashad large consequences for the potato flour industry as their production takes place in theautumn months. The problem has been solved by building more storage capacity.

The storage of the potato fruit juice and water may create odour nuisances. The liquid whenfresh has a moderate sweet sour odour (like butyric acid) which can when decomposing giverise to odour problems. Several studies have been conducted investigating the possibilities ofreducing odour (COWI 1999).

Pectin and carrageenan industry

In Denmark, there are two companies producing pectin and carrageenan. They are bothsituated in the Greater Copenhagen area.

Pectin is based on lemon peels and carrageenan is based on seaweed. Waste products fromthe production of pectin include lemon peels containing different inorganic additives. Wasteproducts from the carrageenan production include (boiled) seaweed, lime and chloride.

For confidentiality reasons, companies were unwilling to supply the DEPA survey withinformation about quantities. In a previous study, it was reported that annual production ofwaste from the pectin and carrageenan production was estimated at 20,000 tonnes. Thewaste spread on land include the leftovers from the boiling process in the pectin andcarrageenan production. The waste used for cattle feed is lemon peels (Table C20). In thefuture, there might be a need for the waste products to be stabilised before being recycled toland.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

173

Table C20 Waste products and outlets from the pectin and carrageenan industry,1991 (DEPA 1998)

Quantity* (wet weight)Application

(tonnes peryear)

(%)

Quantity* (dry weight)(tonnes per year)

Raw material substitution(cattle feed)

5,000 25 1,000

Spread on land 15,000 75 2,400

Total 20,000 3,400* Estimates

Oil and margarine industry

In Denmark, there are three oil mills and three margarine producers. The oil industry producesdifferent oils and fatty substances. The raw material is plant seeds or beans from which oil isextracted and then refined. A small quantity of water is added in the cooling process. Themargarine industry produces margarine from vegetable oils and to a lesser extend from fishoils. The oils are emulsified with water and eventually skimmed milk powder.

Approximately 450,000 tonnes of plant seeds and beans are used in the oil and margarineproduction every year. Of this approximately 400,000 tonnes are rape seeds. Other seeds andbeans used include sun flower seeds, soya beans and cocoa beans. Rape seeds containapproximately 40% oil of which 35% is extracted.

The waste products from the production of oil include seeds and beans, pressed plant seedsand beans (the cake), bleaching soil and oil waste. The bleaching soil is composed ofbentonite or other clay materials which is used in the filtration of vegetable oils and has a highcontent of vegetable oils (up to 40 % weight). Nickel is used in the hardening of the oil. Thebleaching soil therefore also contains nickel in quantities of 1,000-2,000 ppm. The nickelcontent limits the possible use of the bleaching soil. Bleaching soil containing nickel islandfilled. Bleaching soil from non-hardened oils can be utilised for biogas production. Themargarine production creates very small quantities of waste, mainly oil waste (Table C21).


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

174

Table C21 Waste products from oil and margarine production and their application(DEPA 1998)

Waste type Quantity(wet weight)

Quantity(dry weight)

Application

(tonnes peryear)

(%) (tonnes per year)

Pressing waste,disposed of plantseeds and beans,oils

175,000-200,000 >99 160,000-180,000 Raw materialsubstitution(feed)

Oils and fattysubstances andwater

1,700-2,200 <1 1,200-1,400 Biogasproductionfollowed bylandspreading

Cariten 250 <1 250 Incineration

Bleaching soilcontaining nickel

100 <1 100 Landfill

Total +/- 200,000 +/- 180,000

Sugar industry

The sugar industry comprises the production of sugar and the reprocessing of sugar. InDenmark, there is one sugar company with four plants. Currently, about 3.5 million tonnes ofsugar beets are processed every year in Denmark. The sugar industry is characterised bylarge seasonal differences. The sugar production takes place in the autumn when the sugarbeets are harvested.

Sugar beets are stored in stockpiles from where they are transported in a swim drain to awashing process. The clean sugar beets are shredded and the sugar juice is extracted inwarm water. One of the sugar plants have a dry system for transporting sugar beets towashing process.

The shredded sugar beets are either pressed and sold on as fodder or dried and pressed tofodder pills and sold as cattle feed. The raw sugar juice is cleaned by adding lime milk, whichbinds the impurities to the lime. Subsequently, carbon dioxide is added and the lime settles.The lime sludge is separated from the sugar juice using filtration. The sugar juice isevaporated in several steps and leads to a mix of sugar and molasses. The sugar isseparated from the molasses by crystallisation and drying. Both sugar and molasses are thensold.

The following quantities for waste products from the sugar processing industry (Table C22)are provided by the industry (Søren Hjuler Vogelsang) directly and are not taken from theEnvironmental Project like the other industries. The soil and greenery from the washing of thesugar beets is landfilled in earth lagoons. When a lagoon is full, it is covered with top soil andplanted with grass. An attempt has been made to recycle soil and greenery to land but this


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

175

had to be abandoned because of obnoxious odours. Waste water from the sugar production isspread to land. Drained water is sent for treatment to a wastewater treatment plant.

Since 1995, approximately 1,500 tonnes BOD per year have been utilised for biogasproduction at one of the sugar processing plants. The advantage is that the produced biogascan be utilised in the company’s boiler system. The energy savings, however, does notcompensate for capital and operating expenditures.

It is considered that the recycling of sugar processing wastes is optimal with the exemption ofwaste water which contains a relatively large quantity of organic material which could beutilised for biogas production. The industry considers that sugar wastes do no contain anyhazardous substances.

Table C22 Waste products from the sugar processing industry, 1999



Lime sludge App. 100,000 Spread on land

Gravel and stone App. 40,000 Deposits from thesugar beets

Raw material substitution(road material)

Soil, greenery andwaste water

Huge quantity(not measured)

From the washingof the sugar beets

Deposited in soil basins

Dairy industry

The Danish dairy industry is dominated by two companies which produce approximately 80%of all dairy products. In Denmark, milk is processed into four main products: consumermilk/cream, butter, cheese and milk powder.

In 1992, approximately 4.6 million tonnes milk was produced. Of these, 4.4 million tonneswere bought by the dairy industry. For the consumer milk and cream production 0.71 milliontonnes were used while the rest was used for butter, cheese and milk powder production.

The production of waste in the dairy industry is minimal and is estimated to be less than 1%for milk production. In the production of cheese large amounts of whey is produced by theintroduction of rennet into milk. Rennet is an enzyme, which causes the protein casein in themilk to coagulate. The result is a solid phase (cheese grains) and a liquid phase (whey). Thewhey is drained from the cheese. This is used in the farming industry as animal feed ortransformed into whey powder, whey protein and milk sugar. Other waste products fromcheese production is cheese waste, which to a large extent is re-processed into cheesespread. In the production of milk powder, large quantities of water are separated from theproduct.

The quantity of dairy waste is unclear. However, statistical information and data from previoussurveys show that the main part of dairy waste (whey and whey permeate) is re-used for rawmaterial substitution. This is excluding peaks in production when whey is landspread or sentfor biogas treatment. In 1992, the production of whey amounted to 1,760,000 tonnes. It


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

176

contains approximately 20% of the proteins from the milk corresponding to 13,000 tonnesprotein. The quantity of whey being landspread is unclear.

Several dairy plants have on-site wastewater treatment plants. In 1991, MD Foods forexample had 10 anaerobic biofilm plants, 2 activated sludge plants for pre-treatment and 3activated sludge plants for total treatment.

In 1995, farmers using whey as animal feed paid typically DKr 60 per tonne of whey. The costof transportation is relatively high, and the dairy industry does therefore not make much - ifany - profit. The whey is also sold to protein re-processing plants.

Breweries and distilleries

In 1995, Denmark had 12 breweries, 2 malt houses, 3 distilleries and one company producingfruit wine. Carlsberg A/S dominates the Danish brewery industry, producing approximately 60-65% of the total quantity of beer.

The organic waste products from breweries consist mainly of mash and trub, malt shoots,yeast, draff, hop waste and filter material. Mash is the non-soluble substances left over afterthe filtering of the wort in the brewery. Yeast and draff settle during the maturing of the beer.Yeast is the main constituent. The draff also contain proteins and tannin.

The beer passes through a filter material consisting of kieselguhr, a very fine grained materialextracted from marine deposits. The kieselguhr removes the yeast and draff that did not settleduring the maturing of the beer.

The organic waste products from distilleries consist mainly of draff, fusel, vinasse, berries.Draff is the waste product produced during distillation when starch is used for spirit production.A small quantity of impurities is also produced during distillation called fusel (acetaldehydeand higher alcohols). The fusel is burnt in the internal boiler system and the heat produced isused in the production process. If molasses are used for spirit production instead of starch,the waste products are vinasse and fusel.

In the reprocessing of bitter, liqueur and the main part of the fruit wine, water, spices/herbsand essences or fruit juice are added. The quantity of waste produced during these processesis very small.

In the reprocessing to fruit wine, waste products from the berry pressing and fermentation areproduced.

A number of the companies have their own biological wastewater treatment plants. Sludge isproduced as a waste product.

In 1994, approximately 941,000 m3 of beer were produced in Denmark. This corresponds toalmost 1 million tonne of beer. The production of beer is to some extent seasonal partlybecause of variable demand and partly because of seasonal beers such as Easter andChristmas brews. The variations in production intensity can be ±50% of the average.

Approximately 12,000 m3 of pure spirit is produced per year. The main part of this isreprocessed into bitter, snaps, liqueur and fruit wine.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

177

A detailed description of brewery and distillery waste products and their quantities are shownin Table C23 and Table C24 respectively. Mash and trub and malt shoots from breweries aresold as cattle feed. The yeast and draff are heat treated and propionic acid is added before itis sold as pig feed. The kieselguhr waste is used as a filter aid in sewage treatment plants, iscomposted or landfilled. As compost and sewage sludge, a large part of the kieselguhr is alsospread on land.

Draff and vinasse are sold as fodder. The fusel is incinerated in the companies’ internal boilersystems. And the sludge and berry waste are spread on land. One of the fruit wine producerslandspread the berry waste on its own orchard.

The percentage use of the brewery and distillery waste products is illustrated in Figure C2. Itshows that approximately 10-14% of total organic waste produced are landspread.

Table C23 Waste products from breweries (DEPA 1998)


Application

Mash and trub 90,000-100,000 Raw material substitution(animal feed)

Malt shoots 5,500 Raw material substitution(animal feed)

Yeast, draff and otherwaste products

50,000 Raw material substitution(animal feed)

Kieselguhr with yeast anddraff

20,000-25,000 Sewage treatment plants, compost orlandfill

Total +/- 180,000

Table C24 Waste products from distilleries (DEPA 1998)


Application

Draff 35,000 Animal feed

Fusel and non-distilledimpurities

150-250 Incinerated in internal boiler system

Sludge from biologicalwaste water treatmentplant.

8,000-15,000 Landspreading

Vinasse (after evaporation) 26,000 Fodder

Berry waste etc. <1,000 Landspreading

Total +/- 75,000


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

178

Figure C2 Application of brewery and distillery waste (DEPA 1998)

The re-use of waste products from the brewery industry is reported to be optimal. Kieselguhrmay be useful in biogas production. However this should be investigated as the kieselguhr willsettle quickly in a biogas plant. Additionally, new filter methods for beer filtration are beingdeveloped such as cross-flow filtration which would replace kieselguhr from beer production.

The re-use of waste products from the distillery industry is also reported to be optimal. Thewaste that can be used for raw material substitution is used for this purpose. The potential forbiogas utilisation of the waste that currently is landspread, is low. These products musttherefore be considered to be used optimal.

It is easy for the brewery industry to sell its mash and trub as fodder. However, it isconsiderably harder to sell the yeast and draff and the industry has to pay to get rid of thekieselguhr. Generally, the waste user wants the products to be more consistent with regardsto the water content. The drying of yeast and draff may therefore be an option. Another optioncould be to use the products for biogas production.

Leather and tannery industry

There is in Denmark, two tanneries with more than 10 employees and 5 tanneries with veryfew employees. The tanneries treat leather, skin/hide and fur. Skin and leather consist almostfully of protein of which approximately 85% is collagen. However, skin also consists of smallamounts of carbohydrates and fat.

The tannery process produces two waste products; glue leather and fold leather (Table C25).Glue leather contains 20% dry matter and is produced when the meat side of the skin isscraped to the maximum. Glue leather consists of mainly proteins and small quantities of fat,lime, salt and sulphide. The fold leather is leather waste from when the leather is folded. Thisconsists mainly of proteins and water. Fold leather may contain chromium from the tanneryprocess and can therefore not be used for biogas production.

Landspread10-14%

Incineration<0.1%

Landfill<2%

Raw material

substitution86-88%


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

179

Table C25 Waste products from the leather and tannery industry (DEPA 1998)

Quantity (wet weight)Wasteproduct

(tonne per y) (%)

Quantity(tonne ds per y)

Application

Glue leather 2,800 48-58 500 Biogas productionfollowed bylandspreading

Fold leather 2,000-3,000 42-52 380-570 Controlled landfill

Total +/- 6,000 +/- 1,000

Pharmaceutical industry

The Danish pharmaceutical industry is characterised by a few large companies that produceraw materials or pharmaceuticals and a number of small companies that reprocess rawmaterials. In 1995, there were 6 large companies (i.e. with more than 20 employees) thatproduced raw materials and 21 large companies that produced pharmaceuticals.

The organic wastes produced in the pharmaceutical industry are mainly biomass (cells fromthe fermentation process), synthesis residues, alcohol and organic solvents from the cleaningprocesses, product residues and dust from reprocessing.

Pharmaceuticals are produced using synthesis or fermentation. Waste products fromsynthesis are typically synthesis residues and solvents. Waste products from fermentation aretypically biomass and fermentation liquid.

Quantities of wastes produced by the pharmaceutical industry and outlets are presented inTable C26. These figures are estimates as there is a lack of data from the industry. Thequantity of waste products from the pharmaceutical industry is dominated by biomass which islandspread (Figure C3). It is a well-defined product and is therefore easy for the farmer toinclude in his manure statements. The main part of this waste arrives from one company. Thecompany provides it free of charge to farmers. The waste utilised in biogas production ismainly biomass and pure alcohol. Pure alcohol is also used as a carbon source at wastewatertreatment plants. The other waste products, mainly solvents and product residues areincinerated and can not be utilised in any other way.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

180

Table C26 Waste products from the pharmaceutical industry (DEPA 1998)

Waste products Quantity*(tonne per year)


Synthesis residues 1,000 Alcohol, solvents,product residues.

Incineration, biogasproduction, wastewater treatmentplants

Fermentation residues 1,200,000 Biomass,fermentation liquid.

Landspreading,biogas production,sewage treatmentplant

Residues from thepurification process

4,000-5,000 Solvents, productresidues.

Incineration, biogasproduction

Residues fromreprocessing

300-500 Product residues,dust.

Incineration

Total >1,200,000* Estimates

Figure C3 Application of pharmaceutical waste (DEPA 1998)

Spread on land95%

Raw material

substitution3%

Biogas production

1%

Incineration1%


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

181

C3 PROPERTIES OF WASTE SPREAD ON LAND

Farm waste

There is no national survey on quality of livestock waste in Denmark. However, data on qualityof farm waste have been collected in specific surveys since 1960. Information on nutrientquality of farm waste reported in Table C27 are from two sampling exercises carried outbetween 1965-1985 and more recently between 1993-95 (Petersen 1996). The qualitydepends on the type of animal, race, age, fodder, bedding, fodder remnants etc. and will varywith time due to volatilisation of ammonia, for example.

Average content of minerals in farm waste for both manure and slurry is shown in Table C28for the period 1960-85. The high content of zinc in mink manure and slurry may be caused bythe use of galvanised mink cages. Results from the more recent monitoring programme of1995-96, indicated that copper content had decreased to 8 g Cu t-1 ds for cattle slurry and 20g Cu t-1 ds pig slurry respectively. The content of heavy metals in farm waste is shown inTable C29.

Table C27 Average nutrient content of animal manure and slurry. Analyses from theperiod 1965-85 and 1993-95 (Petersen 1996)

Total N Ammonia P KType of waste No ofsamples

DM(%)

(kg t-1 fresh weight basis)

Manure

Cattle 43 20 6.0 1.5 1.9 3.7

Cattle (1993-95) 8 27 7.4 2.5 1.8 4.9

Pig 57 22 7.2 2.5 3.3 3.4

Pig (1993-95) 12 23 9.1 3.7 4.0 4.5

Hens 69 28 13.9 5.3 7.9 8.2

Broiler 15 49 21.3 6.1 11.0 15.3

Ducks 8 15 5.9 1.4 3.1 2.7

Mink 14 43 11.2 5.1 10.3 2.8

Slurry

Cattle (Fully grown) 94 7.5 3.8 1.9 0.8 3.5

Cattle (Young) 118 8.2 4.1 2.2 0.8 3.7

Sows and piglets 65 2.2 2.9 2.1 0.7 1.4

Fattening pigs 83 4 4.6 3.3 1.1 2.2

Mink 13 8.6 9.9 7.2 3.9 1.5


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

182

Table C28 Average minerals in farm waste. Average of analyses in the period 1960-85 (Petersen 1996)

Ca Mg Na Cu Mn ZnDM

(%)(kg t-1 fresh weight) (g t-1 fresh weight)

Manure

Cattle 20 3.0 0.9 0.5 15 42 35

Pigs 22 4.1 1.0 0.7 43 58 99

Poultry 32 17.9 1.8 3.4 32 154 178

Mink 43 19.2 1.3 1.2 16 105 373

Slurry

Cattle 7.7 1.1 0.5 0.7 5 16 12

Pigs 3.3 1.0 0.3 0.6 13 11 30

Mink 8.6 6.4 0.5 0.7 6 23 156

Table C29 Average heavy metal content in farm waste (Petersen 1996)

Pb Cd Ni Cr CoNo ofsamples

DM(%)

(g t-1 fresh weight)

Manure

Cattle 9 19 0.50 0.07 1.04 0.42 0.13

Pigs 3 23 0.74 0.06 1.29 1.56 0.29

Poultry 5 44 0.96 0.37 5.46 1.82 0.23

Mink 6 19 0.86 0.07 0.61 0.42 0.23

Slurry

Cattle 47 6.3 0.27 0.04 0.52 0.20 0.12

Pigs 31 3.8 0.13 0.02 0.55 0.41 0.05

As part of the study into methods and criteria for the assessment of the health andenvironmental risk of applying sludge, etc. to agricultural soil (DEPA 1997) samples from oneconventional and one organic cattle farm were also assessed. Because of the small number ofsamples the results cannot be considered representative of cattle slurry in general. However,the analysis can give an indication of the levels of substances found in cattle slurry.

With the exception of nonylphenols and phthalates, the substances detected in the cattleslurry were only found at low concentrations close to the detection limits (Table C30).


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

183

For the parameters assessed, only small differences between the conventional and theorganic cattle slurry with respect to organic xenobiotics was found. However, a higherconcentration of naphthalane was found in the organic slurry. Additionally, a higherconcentration of copper was found in the conventional slurry, possibly because of the use ofcopper-based agents for the disinfection of the cattle hooves.

Table C30 Organic xenobiotics in aqueous extracts, µg/l (DEPA 1997)

Parameter Conventional cattleslurry

Organic cattle slurry

Naphthalene 0.25 3.5

Trimethylnaphthalenes(C3)

5.0 1.3

Phenanthrene 0.04 0.13

Benzo(a)pyrene 0.51 0.45

Phenol 0.24 0.72

¾-methylphenol 4.4 17

2,4-methylphenol - 0.55

Nonylphenol(+ethoxylates)

64 45

Di-n-butylphthalate (DBP) 25 2.5

Butylbenzylphthalate 3.1 -

Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 281 244

Diethylphthalate 2.3 2

di-n-octylphthalate 10 4.5

Tri-n-butylphosphate 0.16 0.17

Triphenylphosphate 4.5 1.6

tricresylphosphate 2.3 11

p,p’-DDT 3.2 2.6

Heptachloroepoxide 0.9 0.6

Cis- and trans-isosafrol 1.4 1.5

LAS 6 16

Note:

- below detection limit.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

184

Gaseous emissions

Several studies on ammonia emissions from farm waste spread on land have been carriedout. The most recent study on ammonia emissions from husbandry is a status report from1999 (Andersen 1999). The authors found little detailed data on spreading conditions of farmwaste. To overcome the lack of data the following assumptions were made (see Table C31).

Table C31 Estimated distribution of farm waste in 1996 (Andersen 1999)

Spreading method

Manure and slurry Solid manure

Crop Season Number ofhours after

spreading themanure is

plought intothe soil

Discspreading

Shoetrailing

Injection Disc spreading

Hours % of tot-N

- Spring <12 30 15 0 0

- Spring >12 10 10 0 0

-/+ Spring None 5 5 0 55

+ Summer None 2 5 1 0

+ Late summer- autumn

None 2 4 1 0

- Late summer– autumn

<12 3 3 0 0


>12 2 2 0 0

- Late summer- autumn

None 0 0 0 45

Total 54 44 2 100

Taking these assumptions into account, the total ammonia emissions from farm wasteamounted to 70,200 tonnes N in 1996. Of these 32% - equivalent to 22,500 tonnes N - wereemitted during and after landspreading.

The 1987 Action Plan on the Aquatic Environment made provisions for the farming industry tomake changes to slurry containers and to spread farm waste by injection on bare fields.Additionally, the Action Plan for a Sustainable Agriculture made provisions for the farmingindustry to increase the utilisation of the nitrogen in farm waste by 1 January 1997. Theseprovisions were not fully implemented in 1996 and the above figures have been alteredaccordingly.

The provisions of the 1998 Action Plan on the Aquatic Environment II also has an effect onthe ammonia emissions from agriculture. The plan provides for further utilisation of thenitrogen content of farm waste and fodder which will result in a reduction in total ammoniaemissions from agriculture. It is not shown how the increased utilisation is to be achieved. The


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

185

authors have therefore estimated in Table C32 how farm waste will be landspread when theplan has been fully implemented in 2003. Taking these assumptions into account, ammoniaemissions from the Danish farming industry is estimated to be 52,600 tonnes N in 2003. Ofthese 21%, equivalent to 11,000 tonnes N - are estimated to be emitted during and afterlandspreading.

Table C32 Estimated distribution of farm waste after the full implementation ofAction Plan on the Aquatic Environment II (Andersen 1999)

Spreading method

Manure and slurry Solid manure

Crop Season Number ofhours after

spreading themanure is

plought intothe soil

Discspreading

Shoetrailing

Injection Disc spreading

Hours % of tot-N

- Spring <12 20 45 7 70

- Spring >12 0 0 0 0

-/+ Spring None 0 0 3 0

+ Summer None 2 8 3 0

+ Late summer- autumn

None 0 8 3 0


<12 1 0 0 30


>12 0 0 0 0

- Late summer- autumn

None 0 0 0 0

Total 23 61 16 100

Industrial waste

Background

As mentioned previously, some of the forms on which the report “Application of WasteProducts for Agricultural Purposes” were insufficiently filled in. Where the missing informationwas of significant importance such as quantity and dry matter content, these forms wereexcluded from the survey. In some cases where the dry matter content was missingassumptions was made based on average figures for the type of waste.

Table C33 shows the percentage of wastes that has been analysed for the individualparameters. Heavy metal content of waste from food production have a considerably loweranalysis frequency than wastes from more specialised industrial productions such as Section21 wastes. The report does not contain any data on organic parameters (i.e. LAS, Σ PAH, NPEand DEHP) as following the initial testing, the regional councils generally allow companies tobe exempt from further monitoring, the reason being the high cost of analysis.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

186

Table C33 Percentage of quality analysis performed in 1998 for industrial waste

Waste category TP TN K As Cd Hg Pb Ni Cr Zn Cu

Vegetable 91 91 69 1 17 12 9 11 7 7 6

Fish 100 100 5 0 23 2 2 17 1 1 1

Animal 88 88 79 17 30 26 26 26 25 25 62

Section 21 84 82 53 20 83 80 80 87 28 28 66

Unknown 42 37 20 1 35 11 35 35 13 13 13

Nutrients in waste spread on land

Industrial wastes spread on land in 1998 contributed to 3,297 tonnes Tot-P and 4,609 tonnesTot-N (Table C34). According to Section 16 of the Sludge Order, the maximum amount ofnutrient to be applied per hectare per year is 40 kg Tot P and 250 kg Tot N, respectively. Thismeans that there as a minimum is required approximately 83,000 hectare of landcorresponding to less than 1% of the total agricultural land in Denmark. Nutrients applied toland from industrial waste accounts for less than 1% of the nitrogen applied from fertilisersand farm waste while phosphorus accounts for 1-5%.

Section 21 wastes represent the largest contribution of nutrients of all industrial wastecategories. This is mainly from two large producers, Cheminova Agro A/S (fertilisermanufacturer) and Novo Nordisk A/S (pharmaceutical company) which contribute to 62% ofTot P and 23% Tot N.

Table C34 Total nutrient loading in waste per sector for 1998 (tonnes) (DEPA 2000)

Waste category TP TN K

Vegetable 438 1,630 2,740

Fish 21 42 0

Animal 337 1,306 1,288

Section 21 2,460 1,498 1,700

Unknown 41 133 101

Total 3,297 4,609 5,829


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

187

Heavy metals in industrial waste spread on land

Table C35 below shows total load of heavy metal to soil per waste category. The contributionto heavy metal load to soil is for 60-80% due to other waste types than Section 21.

Table C35 Total metal loading per waste per category in 1998 (kg) (DEPA 2000)

Waste type As Pb Cd Cr Cu Hg Ni Zn

Vegetable 26 11 24 90 2 34 365

Fish 1 6 2

Animal 6 27 5 28 514 27 754

Section 21 351 500 58 339 4,798 82 686 15,023

Unknown 21 10 21 84 22 136

Total 357 574 85 412 5,486 84 775 16,280

Typical composition for specific waste streams recycled to land are given below.


Table C36 Typical composition of abattoir wastes (DEPA 1998)

Waste products Composition

Liquid manure:

Pigs

Cattle

DM: 6-10%C/N ratio: 9-15BOD: approx. 30,000 mg l-1

DM: 10-12%C/N ratio: 9-15BOD: approx. 15,000 mg l-1

Wash water from transport trucks BOD: 10,000-20,000 mg l-1

Blood:

Pigs

Cattle

COD: 375,000 mg l-1

BOD: 150,000-200,000 mg l-1

DM: 18-20%Loss by ignition: 96%

Bristle and hoof:

Pigs

Cattle

Protein: 950 g kg-1 DM

Bones:

Pigs

DM: 57%Protein: 360 g kg-1 DM


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

188


Cattle Fat: 220 g kg-1 DM

Bowel content:

Pigs

Cattle

Stomach content:

Pigs

Cattle

DM: 12-15%Loss by ignition: 80-87%C/N ratio: 17-21

Fat:

Pigs

Cattle

DM: 35-70%COD: 600,000-800,000 mg l-1

Sand: 20%Meat waste: 15%

Flotation sludge:

Pigs

Cattle

DM: 5-15%Loss by ignition: 83-98%Protein: 200-550 g kg-1 DMFat: 170-440 g kg-1 DM

Grating:

Pigs

Cattle

DM: 10-20%Loss by ignition: 95%COD: 300,000-450,000 mg kg-1

Chicken

Abattoir waste (non-edible parts,heads, feet)

Feather

Flotation sludge and fat

DM: 15-40%

DM: 40%

DM: 10-15%

Potato processing waste

Table C37 Waste products from the potato flour industry (DEPA 1998)


Potato pulp DM: 14.5%

Potato fruit juice and water of which DM: 1.7%

potato fruit juice DM: 4-4.5%


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

189

Brewery and distillery waste

Table C38 Waste products from breweries and distilleries (DEPA 1998)


Brewery

Mash and trub 20% ds of which8% protein, 2% fat, 5% beer extract, 3%cellulose and 2% minerals.

Yeast, draff and other waste products 10-12% dsVSS: 10%

Kieselguhr with yeast and draff 12-22% dsVSS: 5-21%

Distillery

Draff 10-12% ds

Fusel and non-distilled impurities Alcohols, aldehydes

Sludge from biological waste watertreatment plant.

5% ds

Vinasse (after evaporation) 65% ds


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

190


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

191

REFERENCE

Andersen J.M., Sommer S.G., Hutchings N.J., Kristensen V.F., and Poulsen H.D. (1999)Emission af ammoniak fra landbruget – status og kilder (Ammonia emisions from husbandry –status and sources), the National Environmental Research Institute of Denmark (NERI) andthe Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences (DIAS).

COWI (1999) Miljø og energy i forbindelse med håndtering af lugtemissioner ved opbevaringaf kartoffelfrugtvand (Environment and energy in connection with the handling of odouremissions from the storage of potato fruit water), The Danish Energy Agency, Copenhagen.

Danish Environmental Protection Agency (1997) Environmental Project No. 366 1997. Use ofWaste Products in Agriculture. Contamination Level, Environmental Risk Assessment andRecommendations for Quality Criteria, Danish Environmental Protection Agency.

Danish Environmental Protection Agency (1998) Environmental Project No. 397 1998.Organiske restprodukter i industrien. Del 1: Opgørelse af mængder og anvendelse (Organicby-products in industry. Part 1: Specification of amounts and application), DanishEnvironmental Protection Agency.

Danish Environmental Protection Agency (2000) Jordbrugsmæssig anvendelse afaffaldsprodukter fra industrien, 1998 (Application of Waste Products for Agricultural Purposes,1998), draft, Danish Environmental Protection Agency.

Danish Plant Directorate (1999) Vejledning og skemaer 1999/2000 (Guidance and forms1999/2000), Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries.

Danish Plant Directorate (1999) Gødningsregnskaber. Fysisk kontrol. Statistik 1997/98(Manure Statements. Physical Control. Statistics 1997/98), Ministry of Food, Agriculture andFisheries.

Petersen, J. (ed.) (1996) Husdyrgødning og dens anvendelse (Animal manure – a source ofnutrients), report No. 11, Statens Planteavlsforsøg (now Danish Institute of AgriculturalSciences).

Sommer S.G. and Moller H.B. (1999) Recycling of organic waste and animal manure inDenmark: Research and Development activities 1997-2003. In: Report of 2nd Meeting inGermany by the Recycling Organic Solids in Agriculture (ROSA), 25-26 February 1999.

Statutory Order No. 755 of 30 September 1999 on Professional Livestock, Livestock Manure,Silage etc., Retsinformation, Copenhagen.

Statutory Order No. 823 of 16 September 1996 on Application of Waste Products forAgricultural Purposes, Retsinformation, Copenhagen.

Statutory Order No. 49 of 20 January 2000 on Application of Waste Products for AgriculturalPurposes, Retsinformation, Copenhagen.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

192

CONTACTS

Name Organisation

Peter Greifenstein Danish Plant Directorate

Svend Erik Jepsen Danish Environmental Protection Agency

Leif Knudsen The Danish Agricultural Advisory Centre

Peder Mathiesen Novo Nordisk A/S

Jens Jørgen Nielsen Andelskartoffelmelsfabrikken Sønderjylland

Jørgen Olsen Municipality of Nørre-Rangstrup

Jens Petersen Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences (DIAS)

Peter Vielsted County of West Zealand

Søren Hjuler Vogelsang Danisco Sugar


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

193

APPENDIX D FINLAND

SUMMARY

There is a centralised collection of information on waste arisings and disposal in Finland whichcontain information on quantities recycled to land. It is estimated that about 220,000 tonnesof dry solids of industrial waste are recycled to land. The Finnish Authorities have only beencollecting data about wastes for a couple of years and it was mentioned that the informationmight not be comprehensive. In addition, around 18 million tonnes (fresh weight) of animalmanures as well as 53,000 tds of sewage sludge are also recycled to land. A permit forlandspreading is issued by the local municipalities if the quantities of waste recycled to land isless than 500 tonnes or by the regional council if the quantities are greater.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

194


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

195

D1 LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

Responsible parties

Local authorities organise the collection, recovery and disposal of household refuse and othersimilar waste, and supervise waste management in general in their own area. They also setlocal regulations on waste management, ensure that advice on waste matters is freelyavailable and issue waste permits to small firms and operations.

Regional environment centres guide and monitor the implementation of the Waste Act in theirown regions. They provide training and advice for firms and the public, and issue wastepermits to larger firms and operations.

The Finnish Environmental Institute conducts research and training, disseminates informationon new ideas and methods, and monitors all developments related to waste issues, while alsoparticipating in drawing up new legislation and guidelines related to waste. The Institute alsomonitors transfrontier waste shipments.

The Ministry of the Environment supervises and controls the implementation of wastelegislation. The Government waste committee works with the Ministry to reconcile the often-conflicting demands of various interest groups, to improve waste prevention andmanagement, and to promote research and training.

The supervising authorities, i.e. the municipal and regional environmental centres, are obligedto keep a register (the waste data register) on waste permit applications and notifications.This information is stored on the environmental administration supervision and loading system(VAHTI).

Annual summary reports on wastes produced by business establishments subject toobligatory reporting and the waste management carried out by such businesses is also storedin the VAHTI system. These reports contain information on origin of the waste, treatment,quality, reuse etc.


The Waste Management Act (673/1978) which came into force in 1979, was the first act inFinland dealing specifically with waste management. After Finland joined the EU in 1995 thewaste legislation had to be reformed to bring it in line with corresponding EU legislation.

The new Waste Act (1072/1993) and Waste Decree (1390/1993), which came into force inJanuary 1 1994 implemented the provisions of Waste Framework Directive (75/442/EEC asamended), Council Directive (91/689/EEC) on hazardous waste and Council Regulation No259/93 on the supervision and control of transfrontier shipments of waste. The other ECprovisions on waste and waste management have been implemented through generalregulations issued by the Ministry of the Environment.

Under the Waste Act, landspreading activities have to be licensed. If the quantities applied areless than 500 tonnes, the permit is granted by the local authority while for larger quantities, thepermit is granted by the regional council. A new Environmental Act has been published in May


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

196

2000 which has changed the licensing conditions. It is unsure how this new regulation willaffect the current system.

There are no specific regulations specifying quality requirements for the landspreading ofwaste. Composted organic waste used as soil improver is, however, regulated by the FertiliserAct No 232 of 26 February (FP 1993) and Decision No 46/94 made by the Ministry ofAgriculture and Forestry. The Act promotes the supply of fertilisers of good quality which aresafe and suitable for plant production in Finland. As landspread waste is also considered to bea soil improver it is felt that the Fertiliser Act could also apply. Composting plants areregulated through a system of permit or simple notification depending on municipality.

The detailed provisions of the Fertiliser Act and quality requirements for compost products,including soil improvers and fertilised growing media are specified in the Decisions of theMinistry of Agriculture and Forestry (46/94). These are highlighted in the Table D1 below. Inaddition to these limit values, the decision also specifies that soil improper must not containharmful levels of organic contaminants or pathogens.

Table D1 Quality requirements for composted organic waste under the 46/94Decision

Soil improver or compostpreparation

(mg kg-1)

Fertilised growth medium(mg l-1)

Mercury 2.0 0.2

Cadmium 3 0.5

Arsenic 50 10

Nickel 100 60

Lead 150 60

Copper 600 100

Zinc 1500 150


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

197

D2 QUANTITIES OF WASTES RECYCLED TO LAND

Farm waste

Around 18 million tonnes (fresh weight) of animal manures are produced and recycled onagricultural land in Finland (Table D2). The quantities are estimated based on 1999-2000Eurostat figures presented in Table D3.

Manure and slurry from livestock and fur farms are important waste types, while the slaughterof animals and green house cultivation also result in considerable amounts of farm waste.

Table D2 Estimated quantities of animal manure recycled to agriculture in Finland(from 1997 figures, Finnish Environment Institute)

Waste type Fresh weight

( x106 tonnes)

Cattle manure 15.3

Pig manure 2.4

Sheep and Goat manure 0.105

Horse manure 0.16

Poultry manure 0.19

Fur animal manure 0.082

Total 18.2


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

198

Table D3 Number of farm animal in Finland (Eurostat 1999-2000)

Number(x1000)

Bovine animals less than 1 year old:

Calves for slaughter 9.2

Other calves 360.9

Bovine animals aged between 1 and 2 years: 263.9

Bovine animals > 2 years:

Male 10.9

Heifers 20.1

Dairy cows 373.6

Other cows 29.4

Total of cattle population 1,068.0

Piglets less than 20 kg 441.8

Pigs 20 kg and less than 50 kg 350.7

Fattening pigs of at least 50 kg 533.4

Breeding pig 50 kg and higher:

Boars 6.3

Covered sows 131.2

Sows not covered - total 54.1

Total of pig population 1517.5

Laying hens 3390

Broiler na

Total chicken

Sheep 77

Goat 6.4

Total sheep/goat 83.4

Na not available


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

199

Industrial waste

About 274,000 tonnes of dry solids of industrial waste are also recycled to land including53,000 tonnes ds of sewage sludge (Table D4). Industrial waste recycled to land includemainly lime sludge from sugar processing (37%) and lime waste from limestone quarries (7%).

More than half of the industrial waste is recovered for use as raw material in secondaryprocesses, a small amount is spread to land and the rest is used to generate energy. Thefood industries that were surveyed stressed that the majority of their waste was eitherrecycled into the production process or bulked with peat or wood chips for composting beforebeing spread on land or used in landscaping. Some waste products, for example lime sludgefrom the sugar manufacturing process, were sold to farmers as a fertiliser product.

Treatment of organic wastes (including household and industrial waste) by composting hasincreased significantly in Finland during the last decade, as the research highlighted;composting is shown to be more suitable, than direct spreading for agricultural soilimprovement. Currently, approximately 57% of sewage sludge recycled to land is compostedbefore application.

Under the auspices of its National waste plan, Waste Not Want Not, Finland has a strategy forrecycling which states that waste must be recovered whenever technically feasible, as long asthe extra costs compared to alternative forms of waste management are not excessive.Opinion suggests that with this strategy, in the future more industrial waste will be recycledonto land as a soil improver.

Table D4 Quantities of waste recycled to land (tonnes dry matter) from 1997 figures(Finnish Environment Institute, pers. com 2000)

Waste type Quantities of Waste(x 103 tonnes ds)

Sewage sludge 53

Lime sludge from sugar processing 100.3

Waste from quarries 20

Brewery waste 0.6

Others 100

Total 273.9

Mining waste

About 60% of mining waste come from ore workings. The rest is accounted for by stone andlime and the extraction of clay, gravel and peat with some significant dolomite, feldspar andother chemical workings. Most of this waste is in the form of mineral-enriched sludge. Miningwaste is mostly disposed of to landfill.

Timber and paper waste


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

200

The forestry industries including the production of pulp, paper and timber goods, is veryimportant in Finland. Over a third of all their waste consists of wood and bark. In Finland,wastewaters from paper mills are mainly treated in activated sludge plants. The annualamount of sludge generated is approximately 450 000 t of dry solids.

The dewatered sludges are usually burned or disposed of to landfill. Since high water contentusually makes incineration of sludges uneconomic and new waste regulations restrictlandfilling of organic wastes, new methods for sludge handling have been studied.

Past research results had indicated that the concentrations of heavy metals in paper sludgeswere nearly as low as in animal manure in Finland. Therefore further research was carried outby the Finnish Agricultural Research Centre (FARC) to see if this characteristic alongside thewastes high organic matter content could be utilised in agriculture.

FARC looked at the suitability of industrial sewage sludges for barley cultivation. Field andpot experiments were carried out over a period of three years using sludges from threetreatment plants. Two of these plants received the effluents from pulp and paper plants, andthe third one received effluent from a pharmaceutical company.

Recycling of the sludges in the barley had both positive and negative effects on the soilcharacteristics. However the effects depended very much on the amount of sludge that wasapplied. The sludge from the enzyme and medicine plants raised the pH value of the soil,especially when used at high rates of application. The sludge from the paper plants increasedthe organic matter content of the soil.

The study concluded that the sludge from the enzyme and medicine treatment plants could berecommended to be recycled in agriculture, however the sludges from the pulp and paperplants did have an effect of reducing barley yields. This was thought to be due to plantavailable nitrogen being bound to the high levels of organic matter in the paper sludge.

Further research looked at the feasibility of composting pulp and paper industry sludges. (RRantala et al 1999) The aim was to study the progress of the composting process and thetoxicity and applicability of the sludges in agriculture. The sludges used consisted of 100%biosludge from two mills and a mixture of biosludge and primary sludges from three othermills. The sludges were applied to a barley trial in a 3 year field experiment. The resultsshowed that all sludges were easily composted and would be suitable for use as soilimprovement agents in agriculture.

Brewery and soft drink waste

Kieselghur is used as auxiliary material in beer filtration. The waste kieselghur which is takenout of the filters after processing, is delivered to farmers for landspreading. In 1999 thisamounted to 615 tonne (as dry matter content of 30%). Qualitative information for thekieselghur waste is provided in table D6.

All mixed waste from soft drink plants and breweries is delivered to local landfill sites andcontrolled and handled by local officials. The quantities of mixed waste for the Finnish brewingand soft drink industry in 1999 was 5391 tonnes ds.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

201

Sugar Industry Waste

Sludge from the sugar processing is the only product regarded by the industry as waste whichis recycled to agriculture. The amount is about 650 –700 tonne. On the contary used lime isnot considered as a waste but as a by-product, since it fulfils the soil improver requirementsand is generally used to balance and improve soil pH.

The waste soil that comes out of the cleaning process is also not regarded as waste. It ismainly returned to agriculture and is also used for landscaping, following drying orcomposting.

Potato Processing Industry

One of the largest companies that was interviewed stated that 12510 tonne (wet weight) ofpotato cell sap is recycled to agricultural land as a fertiliser.

Malt Extract Industry

One of the major companies in this industry said that there was no waste material generatedby the malting process but the by-products from malting are pelletied and used as animal feedcomponents. They are currently experimenting with the re-use of some of the waste water toland.

Milling Industry

One of the major milling companies in Finland stressed that they do not recycle any waste toland.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

202


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

203

D3 PROPERTIES OF WASTE SPREAD ON LAND

Paper sludge and pharmaceutical sludge

The characteristics of the sludge used in pot trials carried out by FARC and described aboveare shown in Tables D5 and D6 below.

Table D5 Concentration of heavy metals (mg kg-1 ds) in different waste materials(Makela-Kurtto et al 1993)

Waste Material Cd Cu Hg Pb Zn

Sludge from pulp and papertreatment plants

0.2 41 0.04 5 158

Sludge from paper treatmentplants

0.3 21 0.04 3 66

Sludge from enzyme andmedicine treatment plants

0.3 23 0.73 38 348

Table D6 Concentration of macronutrients (g kg-1 ds) in different waste materials(Makela-Kurtto et al 1993)

Waste Material N P K Ca Mg S

Sludge from pulp and papertreatment plants

22.7 3.9 2.6 12.5 2.8 5.1

Sludge from paper treatmentplants

10.8 2.4 0.9 7.3 11.6 1.8

Sludge from enzyme andmedicine treatment plants

29.1 38.1 7.0 73.2 2.4 3.5


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

204

Brewery and soft drink waste

Qualitative information for the kieselghur waste is provided in table D7.

Table D7 Quality of Kieselgur waste (data provided by a major Finnish Breweryfrom 1999 figures. Pers. Comm 2000)

Content Measured amounts

Neutralisation effect % CaO<1.0

Solid matter content 30 %

Ignition residue 32 %

N 12 (g/Kg)

Liquid N 3.9 (g/Kg)

P <1.0 (g/Kg)

K <1.0 (g/Kg)

Ca 1.1 (g/Kg)

Mg <1.0 (g/Kg)

Mn 31 mg/Kg

B < 1.0 mg/kg

Cu 3.8 mg/kg


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

205

REFERENCE

Council of state decision (No. 282) on using sewage sludge in agriculture (1994) Parliament ofFinland

Makela-Kurtto R., Sippola, J., Inkinen, R. & Vaananen P. (1993) Agricultural use of sewagesludges. NJF-seminar No. 213: Quality evaluation of compost and sludge products forapplication in agriculture. NJF-Utredning/Rapport Nr. 86. P.75-97.

R Rantala P., Vaajasaari R., Juvonen R., Schultz E., Joutti A.,. Makela-Kurtto R., (1999)Composting of forest industry wastewater sludges for agricultural use, the AgricultureResearch Centre of Finland, Jokionen, Finland.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

206

CONTACTS

Name Organisation

Dr. Matti Melanen, ResearchProfessor

Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE)

Juhani Poulanne SanitaryEngineer, Head of Unit

Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE)

Kaija Raino Planner Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE)

Ritva Makela Kurtto. PrincipalScientist

Agricultural Research Centre of Finland

Reeta Korpela for help intranslating.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

207

APPENDIX E FRANCE

SUMMARY

In France, the information on quality and quantity of industrial waste recycled to land is notavailable centrally. The various unions or federations for the different industrial sectors do notcollect this information on a same level. The better-organised federations, such as for thepaper industry or sugar-refining industry, have national data, while others may possess nodata at all.

Some governmental bodies, such as DRIRE, the Regional Directorate for Industry, Researchand the Environment, collect data every two years on amounts of industrial waste in theirrespective region and produce a catalogue detailing types of waste produced and disposalmethods (For example in the Nord-Pas-de-Calais region). The water agencies haveinformation from companies, which must present an agronomic survey of their spreadingoperations every year in order to obtain financial aid for managing their waste.

However, information available at local level is never consolidated at national level. ADEME,the Environmental and Energy Management Agency, the national body responsible for studieson waste, has tried to collect information on disposal of industrial waste between 1990 and1995 but has encountered the same problem of the lack of national consolidation of localdata. A request has even been made to the Ministry of the Environment to initiate a study onthis topic.

The figures presented below come from federations for the respective industrial sectors, fromdata collected by ADEME and from other bodies in previous studies. The qualitative analysesof by-products mostly come from the SEDE database, which contains almost 170 companyspreading reports.

According to the French regulations, there are two types of by-products resulting fromindustrial processes: homologated products falling under the Law of 1979 relating tofertilisation materials and aids to cultivation, and waste subject to declaration or authorisationprocedures, falling either under the water legislation or the regulations governing registeredinstallations (ICPEs – Installations classées pour la Protection de l’Environnement).Traceability and transparency of the methods of disposal are obligatory requirements.

This report presents detailed information for the agricultural sector, paper, sugar-refining,textile, dairy, meat, wine, dredging and drinking water industries.

It is estimated that around 250 million tonnes (fresh weight) of farm waste and 10.5 milliontonnes (fresh weight) of industrial waste are recycled to land in France (Table E1).Landspreading of industrial waste is carried out mostly by professional contractors who arerequired to have an authorisation and a written agreement from the farmer owning the land.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

208

Table E1 Estimation of amounts of wastes and by-products arisings in Franceannually

Waste type Annual quantity(x 103 tonne) (fresh

weight)

Annual quantity(x 103 tonne) (dry

weight)

Agriculture 250 000 50 000

Paper industry 1340 740

Sugar industry

• vegetable residues + soil

• sugar refinery sludge

7 0001 800

4000

Soft Drink industry 30 2.5

Malthouse 7.5 0.72

Textile industry

• textile industry

• wood washing and combingindustry

7035

1025

Leather 7 0.66

Meat industry

• stomach contents

• solid and liquid manure

580

150

105.5

30

Chemical industry 700 (sludge) 180

Dredging and watercourse clearingsector

400 (only for thecountry ‘Nord’)

200

Drinking water industry 150 75

The cost of industrial wastes landspreading depends first of all on the length of haul of wasteswhich is determined by the local acceptance of the recycled wastes, and for wastes liming, onthe importance of the considered deposits (economies of scale) as well as on nuisancescaused by sludges landspreading (olfactory nuisances essentially). Table E2 below presentsthe costs for waste disposal in France. Landfilling and external incineration costs are averagecosts noticed in France.

For effluents, determination of recycling price is different. The lump price includes a part ofcapital depreciation (generally over 10 years including the irrigation equipment, and thenetwork) and a price of wastes landspreading and agronomic follow-up. Cost of capitaldepreciation can be estimated between 0.5 and 1 Euro per m3 and the cost of landspreadingbetween Euro 0.5 and 2.5 per m3. The lump cost is estimated between Euro 1 and 4 by m3.For these effluents, no alternative outlet is foreseen.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

209

Table E2 Costs of disposal of industrial wastes (including transport)

Systems Landspreading in agriculture Landfilling Ext. incineration

Sludge Effluent

Cost in Euro Euro 15 to 23 pertonne

(depending ontransport)

Euro 1 to 4 perm3

Euro 15 to 45 pertonne

+ Euro 9 per tonne

(Ademe tax)

Euro 45 to 90 pertonne


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

210


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

211

E1 LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

Control on animal farm waste landspreading

Landspreading of animal waste is controlled by quality standards specified for manure,legislation on registered installation, the Nitrates Directive, or local heath regulations.

Quality standard

Manure is defined in norm 44 051 which specified quality standards for organic fertilisers.Poultry manure is not explicitly defined under this norm but, in general terms, fresh or solidpoultry manure is assimilated under the same norm 44 051. However, the nitrogen andphosphorus content in these waste often exceed the level of 3% of dry material contentestablished as a fixed value by this norm. On the other hand, dried poultry droppings areexpressly defined in norm 42 001 Class VI as fertiliser entirely of animal origin.

Slurry is not defined in French norms because composition is extremely variable. It isconsidered to be agricultural waste and a spreading survey is needed before their application.

Legislation regarding registered installations

In France, specified industries and activities are controlled by regulations on registeredinstallations (Law No. 663 of 19 July 1976). The 1976 Law introduces a system of integratedpermit for the most polluting activities, Installations classées pour la protection del’environnement (ICPE). A company/activity must apply for an authorisation or a declarationdepending on their activities and their size.

Some animal farming installations are subject to authorisation under the Law No 663 of theClassified Installations and a permit is issued. The regulation imposes specifications oncovering for storage areas and on spreading conditions of effluent. The detailed technicalregulations that animal farms subject to authorisation must satisfy are defined in the Order of29 March 1995.

For installations subject to declaration, the ‘Arrêtés type’ specify the operating conditions andthe Prefects may expand these specifications in accordance with the characteristics of thelocal environment to be protected within their county.

Programme of control of pollution from agricultural origin (PCPAO).

This programme results from a general agreement between three parties : the farmers unionand representatives, the two government ministries in charge of the Agriculture and theEnvironment and the six regional Water agencies. It was approved in October 1993. It ismainly developed as a financial tool rather than a legal code.

The main focus is now on nitrogen. This programme states that a tax (redevance pollution inFrench) will be paid by the farmer in a near future. This tax will be proportional to the size ofthe farm and to a residual pollution level. In order to anticipate and try to deplete this potentialtaxes before they become effective, the objective of actual programme is to help and to


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

212

subsidize the farmers to improve their current situation. In the future, this tax will be paid tothe Water Agencies in the same way as the practice already exists for the industrial sector.

The basis of this tax is to calculate a residual pollution level for nitrogen. A number of criteriahave been defined to calculate this pollution and this relates mainly to the collection andstorage capacity of the farm and subsequently to the quality and reliability of the spreadingschedule.

County health regulations (RSDs)

The county health regulations specify the relevant conditions for installations and activities notcovered by registered installation legislation, particularly the period during which spreading offertiliser is inappropriate.

The “Nitrates” directive

Under the programme for controlling nitrate pollution of agricultural origin, the followingregulations specifically concerned landspreading:

• Decree No. 93-1038 of 27 August 1993 relating to protecting water from nitrates ofagricultural origin;

• Order of 22 November 1993 relating to the Code of Good Agricultural Practice;

• Decree No. 96-163 of 4 March 1996 relating to the action plans to be implemented toprotect water from pollution by nitrates of agricultural origin details the contents of suchaction plans. Their operating procedure is defined in the Order of 4th March 1996. Theaction plans the Prefect decrees are revised every four years.


Depending on the company’s status and the techniques selected by the company for treatingits effluent, landspreading of industrial waste on agricultural land is regulated either by thewater legislation, by the legislation covering registered installations or some other localcontrols.

According to the French regulations, there are two types of by-products resulting fromindustrial processes:

• Homologated products falling under the Law of 1979 relating to fertilisation materialsand aids to cultivation. Certain products, composed in whole or in part of sludge or by-products, can receive an homologation, or provisional authorisation for their sale, underLaw No. 79-595 regarding control of fertilisers and cultivation support media. They aretherefore exempt from any requirement for authorisation or declaration. The same appliesto products deriving in whole or in part from residues, in conformance with a statutorynorm (e.g. norm NF 44-051 on organic fertilisers); and

• Waste subject to declaration or authorisation procedures, falling either under the waterlegislation or the regulations governing registered installations (ICPEs – Installationsclassées pour la Protection de l’Environnement).


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

213

Water legislation

Whenever it is not covered by legislation regarding registered installations, the use of sludgeor effluent is regulated by the water police and falls under the water legislation. This is thecase for companies connected to a collective wastewater treatment works not classified asregistered installations, for companies only subject to declaration and for companies notclassified as registered installations.

If the capacity of the municipal collective wastewater treatment plant is superior to 10 000equivalent inhabitants and if COD levels in the industrial effluent are superior to 70 % of theplant’s COD capacity, this treatment plant is governed by registered installation legislation.Otherwise, it is governed by this water legislation.

Landspreading is controlled under Decree No. 93-743 of 29 March 1993, as amended.Landspreading operations fall under the system of declaration or authorisation whoseprocedures are defined in Decree No. 92-742 of 29 March 1993. The detailed rules governinglandspreading are established in the Decree No. 97-1133 of 8 December and the Order of8 January 1998 which defines the technical specifications.

Under the programme for controlling nitrate pollution of agricultural origin, the followingregulations specifically concerned landspreading:

• Decree No. 93-1038 of 27 August 1993 relating to protecting water from nitrates ofagricultural origin;

• Order of 22 November 1993 relating to the Code of Good Agricultural Practice;

• Decree No. 96-163 of 4 March 1996 relating to the action plans to be implemented toprotect water from pollution by nitrates of agricultural origin details the contents of suchaction plans. Their operating procedure is defined in the Order of 4 March 1996. The actionplans the Prefect decrees are revised every four years.

Legislation regarding Registered Installations

If a company is governed by legislation on registered installations (Law No. 663 of 19 July1976), landspreading of its sludge or effluent is governed by the same legislation. Thislegislation imposes on companies either a full authorisation or, for less polluting companies, alimited declaration procedure.

For registered installations subject to authorisation, regulations covering the spreading ofwaste or effluent have been copied exactly from those applicable to landspreading of sewagesludge, taking into account certain specific requirements concerning a particular industrialsector.

Specifications regarding landspreading of sludge and effluent from registered installations arepublished under Articles 36 to 42 and 70 of Order of 2 February 1998 as modified by Order of17 August 1998 and Order of 15 February 2000. The limit values for effluent as specified inArticles 34 and 39 of the modified Order of 2 February 1998 are minimum requirements to bespecified in individual authorisations. More stringent measures may be taken to comply withlocal regulations and planning and to take into account of characteristics of local environment.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

214

Article 36 details the conditions in which spreading is forbidden and the general rules to beobserved. These specifications apply to:

• existing installations to which spreading authorisation has already been granted, from1 January 2002.

• new installations or installations undergoing authorised modifications or extensions, from3 March 1999.

• abattoirs mentioned in Article 36-II, paragraph, which are forbidden to spread from17 November 1999.

Specific requirements

The main requirements applicable to installations subject to authorisation both governed bywater legislation or by registered installations are detailed below:

1. Initial study

Forming part of the impact study for which the farmer is responsible, this must show theeffluent and/or waste’s non-harmful nature (within the conditions of use) and its agriculturalvalue. The study defines the capacity of the soil to accept the waste and/or effluent, the areafor spreading and the methods of execution.

Compiled under 11 obligatory headings, the initial study, which must be well documented(with the results of cartographical analyses), details the waste or effluent involved, its relevantstorage, the area for spreading, the soil characteristics and cultivation systems and thetechnical methods of executing and monitoring the spreading procedures, and justifies theapplication rates and frequency of spreading.

A written agreement with the farmer owning the land involved in the spreading programmecompletes the initial study.

For solid waste, an alternative disposal or recycling option must be presented if therequirements of the present decree cannot be met temporarily.

2. Storage or temporary deposit

Measures must be taken to ensure storage of waste or effluent when spreading is impossibleor forbidden. It is forbidden to tip any excess into the natural environment. Measures must betaken to avoid nuisance or damage to the surrounding area and soil pollution. Nounauthorised persons must have access to open air storage sites.

Temporary deposit of waste on land allocated for spreading is permitted provided that the fivefollowing conditions are met:

1. the waste is solid and non-fermentable (if not, it must only be left for less than 48 hours);

2. precautions have been taken to avoid any run-off or rapid percolation through the soil;


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

215

3. the distances must be observed (100 m in the case of any habitation, 3 m in the case ofroads or ditches);

4. the volume stored must be reasonable in terms of fertilising the land on which it is placed;

5. the storage period must be less than one year and no repetition must take place withinthree years.

3. Provisional annual programme

Drawn up by the producer of the waste or effluent, this is established in agreement with thefarmer and at least one month before the start of the operation. The programme must specifythe following points:

• parcels of land concerned;

• cultivation systems (before and after spreading);

• agricultural value of the soil;

• agricultural value waste or effluent;

• application rates;

• spreading schedule and

• people involved in carrying out the spreading operation.

The programme must be made available to the Inspectorate of Registered Installations.

4. Spreading dossier

Kept for ten years and made available to the Inspectorate of Registered Installations, thisrecords the weather conditions at the time of each spreading operation, all the results fromanalysis of the soil and the waste or effluent, the dates on which spreading took place and theplots of land involved.

5. Agronomic report

Sent to the Prefect and the farmers involved, this comprises a quantitative and qualitativereport on the waste or effluent spread, the use of the spreading dossier, the amounts ofmanure used and any updates to the initial study.

6. Contents of the authorisation order

The authorisation order should specify:

• Any treatment of the waste or effluent;• The maximum permitted values of any undesirable elements;• The spreading methods;• The maximum quantities to be spread;• The prohibitions regarding spreading;• The stipulations concerning temporary or permanent storage;


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

216

• The contents of the spreading dossier;• The requirements for transmission of documents;• The frequency of analyses on the waste or effluent and their nature;• The frequency of soil analyses and their nature.

7. Characteristics of the products to be spread:

The appropriate values for controlling the quality of sludge or effluent to be spread and theselected soil quality are more stringent that those envisaged in CEE Directive No. 86/273 of12 June 1986.

The pH must lie between 6.5 and 8.5. Waste outside this range can be applied to landprovided that conditions are favourable for the study (liming).

The level of metal trace elements and trace organic compounds must be within the limitsprescribed in Tables E3 and E4.

Table E3 Maximum levels of trace metals in waste or effluent permitted by theregulations

Trace elements Max. permissible level inwaste or effluent

(mg/kg DM)

Max. cumulative flow fromwaste or effluent over 10

years (g/m2)

Cadmium 20* 0.03**

Chromium 1000 1.5

Copper 1000 1.5

Mercury 10 0.015

Nickel 200 0.3

Lead 800 1.5

Zinc 3000 4.5

Chromium + Copper +Nickel + Zinc

4000 6

* 15 mg/kg DM from 1st January 2001 and 10 mg/kg DM from 1st January 2004** 0.015 g/m2 from 1st January 2001


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

217

Table E4 Maximum permissible levels of trace organic compounds in waste oreffluent

Trace compounds Max. permissible level inwaste or effluent

(mg/kg DM)

Max. cumulative flow fromwaste or effluent over 10

years (g/m2)

Generally Spreading onpasture land

Generally Spreading onpasture land

Total of 7 main PCBs* 0.8 0.8 1.2 1.2

Fluoranthene 5 4 7.5 6

Benzo (b) fluoranthene 2.5 2.5 4 4

Benzo (a) pyrene 2 1.5 3 2* PCB 28, 52, 101, 118, 138, 153,

8. Soil characteristics:

The pH must be above 6 (or 5 in certain conditions). The levels of trace metal elements mustbe within the limits prescribed in Table E5. Exemption can be granted, provided that theseelements are neither mobile nor bioavailable (geochemical study).

Table E5 Maximum levels of trace metals in the soil permitted by the regulations

Trace metals Max. permissible level in the soil(mg/kg DM)

Cadmium (Cd) 2

Chromium (Cr) 150

Copper (Cu) 100

Mercury (Hg) 1

Nickel (Ni) 50

Lead (Pb) 100

Zinc (Zn) 300

9. Areas and periods prohibited for spreading:

• Less than 50 m from any habitation or area occupied by third parties, leisure areas orestablishments open to the public; this distance is increased to 100 m in the case ofodorous waste;

• Less than 35 m from a borehole for water destined for human consumption (inclination ofthe terrain <7%);


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

218

• Less than 35 m from the banks of water courses or lakes (inclination of the terrain <7%);

• Less than 200 m from any bathing area;

• Less than 500 m from any aquaculture site;

• Outside any land regularly worked and managed forests or meadows;

• On steeply sloping terrain;

• During periods when the soil is frozen or heavily covered with snow (except for solidwaste);

• During periods of heavy rainfall.

Table E6 Separation distances and delays before conducting spreading operations

Nature of the activities to beprotected

Minimum separationdistance

Area of application

Wells boreholes, springs,aqueducts conveying free-flowingwater for human consumption,underground or partially buriedinstallations for storing water usedfor the supply of drinking water orwatering horticultural crops.

35 metres

100 metres

Slopes less than 7%.

Slopes over 7%.

Watercourses, lakes, reservoirs 35 metres from thebanks

200 metres from thebanks

100 metres from thebanks

5 metres from the banks

Generally except for thespecific cases below.

Non-stabilised or non-solid waste on slopesover 7%.

Solid, stabilised wasteon slopes over 7%.

Non-fermentable wasteburied in the groundimmediately afterspreading on slopesless than 7%.

Inhabited buildings or buildingshabitually occupied by thirdparties, leisure areas orestablishments open to the public

50 metres

100 metres

Generally except forthe specific casebelow.

Odorous waste oreffluent.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

219

10. Monitoring methods for waste, effluent and the soil

Waste, effluent and the soil itself must be analysed with the frequency laid down in theauthorisation. The nature of the analyses involves the following parameters:

− For waste or effluent: dry material content (in %), organic material content (in %), pH,overall nitrogen and ammonical nitrogen (NH4

+), C/N ratio, total phosphorus (as P205), totalpotassium (as K20), total calcium (as CaO), total magnesium (as MgO), trace elements(B, Co, Cu, Fe, Mn, Mo, Zn), Cu, Zn and B.

− For the soil: granulometry and the same parameters as for waste and effluent, replacingthe elements concerned by exchangeable P2O5, exchangeable MgO and exchangeableCaO.

The sampling and analysis methods are defined in the AFNOR norms.

11. Maximum contributions:

• Dry material: 30 tonnes over 10 years.

• Metal trace elements and trace organic compounds: see Tables E2 and E3.

• Nitrogen: 350 kg/ha/year on grassland.200 kg/ha/year on other arable landno contribution to areas of vegetable cultivation.

• Fertilisers: restricted to crop or soil requirements.

Local health regulations

Landspreading of industrial waste from registered installations are subject, “by default”, to theterms of local health regulations made at the county level, that lay down the health regulationsand all other measures relating to the preservation of human health, with particular regard toprotect against any damage being caused by non-registered installations. These local healthregulations will be progressively replaced by State Decrees uniformly applied across thewhole country. These decrees may be supplemented by Prefectorial or Municipal Edicts. Forexample, Decree No. 96-540 of 12 June 1996 specified rules applying to the tipping andspreading of effluent on agricultural land.

Specific legislation on waste generated by paper and pulp industry

The spreading of paper industry by-products is governed by the Order of 6 January 1994(Article 12.3) with reference to norm NFU 44.041.

This Order of 6 January 1994 specifically states that:

• Any spreading of effluent or sludge is subject to a spreading and agronomic monitoringprogramme being compiled.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

220

• The spreading programme must be incorporated into the impact study and the prefectorialauthorisation to operate, all monitored by an Inspector from DRIRE.

• The sludge or effluent’s pH must lie between 6.5 and 8.5 and the sludge conform to thelevels for trace elements laid down in norm NFU 44.041.

However, a new order regarding paper mills is due to appear (Order of 3 April 2000) based onthe Order of 2 February 1998, modified with regard to registered installations subject toauthorisation.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

221

E2 QUANTITIES OF WASTE RECYCLED TO LAND

Farm waste

Animal manure has a beneficial effect on the soil since it provides organic material andfertilising elements (N, P, K) required for the growth of vegetation. Because of the agriculturalbenefit of this natural fertiliser, the farmer can reduce his consumption of chemical fertiliseraccordingly. Use of farm manure is therefore beneficial but must not be used in heavyconcentrations to avoid the risk of overloading the absorption capacity of the soil and causingpollution.

In France, the situation is very diverse with some agricultural areas suffering from lack oforganic matter while other areas have been declared ZES (areas with an excess of nitrogen inthe soil). The transport of manure (in solid or liquid form) from the ZES areas (generallylocated in the north-west of France) to nitrogen-deficient areas (major agricultural regions)would, of course, resolve the problem but the water content of the manure and the hightransport costs make this an unrealistic solution.

The coefficients used to provide an estimate of the volume of manure for cattle, pigs andpoultry destined for consumption were provided by CORPEN in 1997 while data for layinghens were provided by the Technical Institute for Aviculture, ITAVI (1991)

For each of the three species, figures were provided by the Annual Agricultural Statisticsreport of 1997 and then converted into reference units:

• large cattle units (UGB) for all the cattle except for veal destined for the butchery trade;• cooked pork products (PCP) for all pigs;• laying hens (PP) for laying hens and pullets, and• edible poultry (VC) for turkeys and chickens destined for the table (see Table E6).

The following assumptions regarding the nature of the manure were made:

• 80% of cattle are reared on bedding (solid manure) and 20% produce liquid manure;• 100% of butchery veal produce liquid manure;• 100% of pigs are reared above ground and produce liquid manure;• 100% of laying hens and pullets produce liquid manure.

Lastly, we have multiplied the reference units for each of the livestock categories by theaverage amount of manure after storage (Table E7) to obtain the volume of waste producedper region (Table E8).

It has been estimated that the total volume of collectable manure amounts to around 250million tonnes (fresh weight), of which 87% are from cattle alone. Three regions, Brittany,Loire and Lower Normandy, account for almost 40% of the total volume.

It is interesting to note that two trends have been increasingly prevalent over the past 20years, geographical concentration and intensive farming (almost 20% of pig-breeding unitscontained more than 1000 pigs in 1995, compared with only 2% in 1979).


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

222

It would be difficult to envisage a return to less intensive methods in future, even stabilisationof the current trend would appear to be an ambitious aim (in view of the recent demonstrationby pig breeders, which would make any prediction of a return to less intensive methods verydifficult, given that this would entail an increase in production costs and a reduction in theirprofit margin, which they already consider to be too low).

On the other hand, there is more hope of improving animal feed, into which there isconsiderable research at present. Although the effect on manure content of any modificationto animal feed still remains quite low, nevertheless it is encouraging enough to be worthmentioning.

Table E7 Reference unit for different class of animals

Animals Used equivalents by animal species

Dairy cow 1 UGB

Cows, heifers 0,7 UGB

Beef cattle 0,6 UGB

Calves 0,3 UGB

Sows 5 PCP

Gilt, boar, fattening pigs 1,8 PCP

Other pigs 0,8 PCP

Edible poultry 13 chickens/m2

Turkey 7,5 turkeys/m2

UGB large cattle unitsPCP cooked pork products

Table E8 Average annual quantity of animal manure per reference unit

Type of manure Average annual production

Cattle solid manure 15 t/year

Cattle slurry 18 m3/year

Calf slurry 2,2 m3/year

Pig slurry 1,0 m3/PCP

Poultry manure 0,150 t/m2 year


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

223

Table E9 Total annual quantity of animal manure produced in different regions inFrance (fresh weight basis)

Region

Cattlemanure

(x103

tonnes)

Cattleslurry

(x103 m3)

Total(x103

tonnes)

Pigslurry

(x103 m3)

Ediblepoultry(x103

tonnes)

Layinghens

(x103 m3)

Total(x103

tonnes)

Ile de France 275 84 359 18 4 50 431

Champagne-Ardenne

5 177 1 566 6 743 242 20 34 7 039

Picardie 5 077 1 512 6 519 307 9 133 6 968

Haute-Normandie 6 098 1 835 7 932 337 12 85 8 366

Centre 4 803 1 455 6 259 662 58 214 7 193

Basse-Normandie 15 770 4 810 20 580 934 27 85 21626

Bourgogne 9 331 2 811 12 142 387 46 71 12 646

Nord-Pas-de-Calais

7 277 2 208 9 485 1 063 46 125 10 720

Lorraine 8 226 2 492 10 718 190 4 42 10 953

Alsace 1 661 507 2 168 168 20 73 2 429

Franche-Comté 5 857 1 785 7 642 200 3 20 7 864

Pays de la Loire 22 444 6 920 29 365 2 758 352 942 33 416

Bretagne 19 840 6 443 26 283 13 955 841 1 716 42 795

Poitou Charentes 6 250 1 913 8 163 565 56 201 8 985

Aquitaine 6 426 2 173 8 599 944 102 175 9 821

Midi-Pyrénées 10 043 3 222 13 265 1 029 48 190 14 532

Limousin 7 448 2 304 9 752 324 2 23 10 101

Rhône-Alpes 9 299 2 885 12 184 665 86 365 13 300

Auvergne 12 395 3 774 16 169 571 41 65 16 845

Languedoc-Roussillon

1 333 405 1 738 90 33 59 1 919

PACA 522 160 683 209 7 79 977

Corse 506 163 668 80 1 0 749

FRANCE 165 989 51 425 217 414 25 695 1 820 4 747 249 676


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

224

Paper Industry

The paper industry in France comprises industrial sites producing very different products on awide range of machinery the types of wastes produced depends on the company’s contextand investments, which are closely linked to international market dynamics. Therefore, by-products recycled for agricultural purposes vary greatly in composition.

The paper industry comprises two main types of manufacture.

• Paper pulp:

− Chemical pulp: 7 companies representing 80% of total pulp production− Mechanical pulp (for newspaper): 12 companies representing 20% of total pulp

production

Providing an overall pulp production of 2.7 million tonnes.

• Paper and board: 110 companies, of which 12 carry out de-inking processes.

Providing an overall paper and board production of 9.1 million tonnes.

(Reference: COPACEL, 1998)

Both types of industries are major consumers of water. Nowadays, both have primary watertreatment plants (physical-chemical treatment, sedimentation tanks). The effluent undergoesphysical-chemical or primary treatment to remove suspended solids. A sedimentation orflotation stage enables this suspended material to be recovered in the form of sludge. Ifrequired, the effluent from the primary treatment process undergoes biological (aerobic oranaerobic) or secondary treatment to remove dissolved organic material. The organic materialis broken down by the actions of micro-organisms which constitute an essential part of thesludge produced by biological treatment processes.

However, this will be insufficient to meet the future regulations and the manufacturers mustnow take steps to install secondary water treatment plants (biological purification stations):around one third had already installed these by the end of 1993. The production of bothprimary and biological sludge from pulp and paper industry is presented in Table E11.

Paper manufacturers also produce de-inking sludge from used paper (a growing activity).Where factories incorporate de-inking units, the foam produced is treated, producing de-inkingsludge. This contains ink, but particularly fibre and the mineral elements involved in the de-inking process. To reduce the amount of pollution before the effluent is released into the river,the liquid effluent from the various production units are either specially treated or processed ina treatment plant. A sieve installed at the inlet to the purification plant removes the largestpieces of solid waste held in the liquid effluent.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

225

Table E10 Quantity of paper sludge produced in France

1993 1998 2000 2002

Treatment plant sludge(in k/t of suspended material)

290 350 385 390

De-inking sludge(in k/t of suspended material)

100 200 220 300

TOTAL 390 550 605 690

Ref.: Paper Technology Centre - 2000

Over the past 10 years, agricultural recycling of sludge has been the preferred choice, therebyreturning fibre to the soil (materials recycling) (see Table E12). The cost of agriculturalrecycling is less than that for other methods such as external incineration or landfilling.Incineration (representing some 15% of total disposal) is an in-house process which is alsoused. In the case of factories producing pulp, incineration takes place in a bark-fuelledfurnace. In-house incineration (in a bark-fuelled furnace) has been favoured as a means toreduce the volume of sludge to be disposed of in certain paper mills. There is now someexperimentation with spreading in forests (particularly for purification plant effluent). A canalsystem is installed to irrigate the trees. Other experiments, involving combined incinerationwith household refuse, are also being conducted.

Table E11 Disposal options for paper sludge in France

Sludgedisposalsystems

Agriculture Landfill

(Class 2)

In-houseincineration

(using wood)

By-products forthe

brick/tile/cementindustries

Tonnages for thedifferent systems

460,000 96,000 118,000 67,000

% 62% 13% 16% 9%

Ref: Ademe and Arthur Andersen 2000

Another type of waste generated from the paper and pulp industry is ash originating frombarks incineration and possibly sludge incineration in the bark boiler. It is very difficult toestimate total amounts of ashes produced by French pulp and paper industry. Ademe andArthur Andersen (2000) estimated that 125 000 tonnes ds of ash were generated in Francefrom paper industry but this estimation is not completely exhaustive. The disposal outlets forpaper ashes are presented in Table E13.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

226

Table E12 Disposal options for ashes in France

Ashes disposalsystems

Agriculture Landfill Cementindustry

Others

% 34% 19% 37% 10%

Ref : Ademe, Arthur Andersen, 2000

Comments

Paper industry sludge has a much more consistent quality than that of urban sludge andtherefore the analytical frequency seems too high nowadays, given that there is littlefluctuation between the different parameters.

It is inadvisable to combine the separate problems of disposing of urban sludge and paperindustry sludge. An economically realistic method should be selected.

Recycling has been favoured by the industry in France since it remains the most natural and,above all, the least onerous solution. This solution has not been adopted in other countrieshowever; other solutions, such as incineration and landfilling cost less there. What is more,within the paper industry, the most economic choice for sludge disposal can determine theprocess used. In France, paper recycling is currently favoured because the method ofdisposing of the sludge produced costs less than in other countries. The process of re-usingfibre from recycled paper produces a large amount of sludge (1 tonne of sludge for everytonne of paper produced). In the Netherlands, sludge disposal systems cost significantly morethan in France because of the high environmental constraints. A process producing lesssludge is therefore favoured – i.e. using virgin pulp.

In France, the public enquiry necessary to authorise spreading is an onerous and difficult toorganise procedure. Many towns are deeply concerned and there is significant debate.

The paper-making industry is shortly expecting generalisation of the product homologationprocedures to facilitate agricultural recycling, since the sludge does not present any particularproblems.

Application of the European IPPC directive will enable the best production processes forpaper, board and pulp in terms of the environment to be determined, as well as the besttechniques for handling the waste. The paper industry is a sector of prime importance for thisdirective and therefore will endeavour to have its preferred method, i.e. spreading, acceptedas the best system for handling its sludge.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

227

Textile Industry

The textile industry sub-divides into various sectors according to the principal activity:

• Shearing: separating wool from skins, giving priority to wool;• Tawing: separating wool from skins, giving priority to leather;• Tanning: tanning and processing leather;• Washing and combing wool;• Spinning;• Textile processing.

We shall be concentrating particularly on the sectors involved in textile processing, washingand combing wool and the production of leather.

The European IPPC directive of 1997 requires the textile industry to select the least pollutingprocesses in terms of the environment. Each sector must adopt these before 2007. Thechoice of the different processes is made according to its effectiveness, profitability and thelevel of environmental pollution it produces.

It is not unusual for a textile product to undergo five, six, seven or even ten successivetreatments: for example, pre-washing, bleaching, pre-treatment, dying, soaping, washing,initial dressing, second dressing, washing, rinsing, etc. What is more, some dyeing processesrequire several vats for applying different products. This results in a relatively high waterconsumption, rarely less than 60/80 litres kg-1 and can exceed 200 litres kg-1 for moresophisticated treatments; around 120/150 litres kg-1 could be taken as an average figure.

Textile processing industry effluent contains products used in the industrial process. Thewater collected from this industry contains, in moderate amounts:

• in the case of the bleaching industry, bleaching agents and detergents;

• in the case of the dyeing industry, dyestuffs and fixatives as well as some auxiliaryproducts.

The collection water contains small amounts of degradation products such as organichalogens from the bleaching agents and dyestuffs and particularly heavy metals from thedyestuffs.

More than one textile processing company in every two is connected to a municipal sewernetwork and its effluent is treated in a generally satisfactory fashion by mixing it with domesticeffluent.

In a more limited number of cases, recourse has been required to individual treatment plants,all using traditional biological processing processes, possibly preceded by physical-chemicalpre-treatment when the products capable of being more readily treated by this method can beeasily separated out. Some companies, however, have not yet passed the pre-treatmentstage for their effluent but these are generally small units whose impact on the environment isminimal.

It can therefore be calculated that currently, on average, some 70-80% of textile processingresidual water is treated, maintaining the traditional criteria of COD, BOD and suspended


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

228

material. The overall cost of treating this residual water (including any subsidiary costs)represents 3-5% of the cost price.

It would appear that traditional biological treatments have been quite effective as regardseffluent from dyeing processes, provided that loads were relatively low, since our COD/BODratio (chemical oxygen demand/biological oxygen demand) is relatively high, which does notallow the micro-organisms to operate in the best conditions.

The traditional “activated sludge” technique produces levels of oxidisable materials slightly inexcess of 90%.

All the “traditional” water treatment techniques lead:

• On the one hand, to degradation through oxidisation with the production of CO2; and

• On the other hand, to concentration of the non-biodegradable elements in the sludge.

The processes for treating liquid textile effluent lead to the production of sludge at the outletfrom the sedimentation tank having a dry material content of the order of 30 to 50 g l-1. AITF/ADEME survey of the sludge in 1997 enables it to be attributed certain characteristics(Table E14).

Table E13 Amounts of sludge produced by textile processing companies withindividual or collective activated sludge treatment units. (Source:ITF/Ademe – 1997)

Volume ofeffluent

(m3/week)

Textileproduction

(Tonnes / week)

Sludgeproduced

(Tonnes/week)

Dry materialcontent ofthe sludge

(%)

Sludgeproduced per

tonne of textilesprocessed(kg/tonne)

Unit 1 43 000 230 53 10 –12 230

Unit 2 20 000 120 38 15 317

Unit 3 17 000 93 20 30 (filter press) 215

Unit 4 7 000 74 9 11 – 15 122

Given that:

• About 300 000 tonnes of raw materials are used by textile processing industry each year;• 80 % of the effluent is treated in mixed or industrial biological activated sludge treatment

units;• Nearly 200 kg of sludge is produced for each tonne of material processed;

About 60 000 tonnes of sludges are produce by the textile industry each year. The productionof sludge with 13% dry material content can be estimated as being between 70 and 75,000tonnes/year for the textile processing and combing sectors.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

229

The sludge characteristics depend on the type of treatment applied to the liquid waste –physical-chemical (coagulation-flocculation) or biological. Most of the sludge produced bybiological treatments can be dried relatively easily by filter pressing to make it “pelletisable”,but the amounts remain significant. The problem of storing the sludge has restricted the use ofphysical-chemical treatment methods, however effective, since these produce colloidal sludgethat is particularly difficult to dehydrate.

Recourse either to controlled landfill sites or agricultural spreading is therefore essentialwhere metal contents remain within the permissible limits (as is generally the case). Thesludge is then recycled to agriculture, incinerated or discharged. It should be noted thatdisposal of Class 2 waste with household refuse which only involves small treatment plants,will shortly no longer be envisaged. Recycling as soil additives is possible, given the high levelof organic matter in the sludge. Transport is only economically viable within a radius of 50 km.In all the companies visited by ADEME in 1997, the sludge was recycled to agriculture.

Wool-washing/wool-combing industry generates different types of wastes that can be recycledin agriculture (Table E15).

Table E14 Quantitative and disposal outlet for wool washing waste

Type of by-product National disposal Elimination methods

Suint

(fatty material recoveredduring washing)

2800 t Transformation into lanolin for use inthe cosmetics and soap industries(100%)

Wool dust 600 t Agricultural spreading (35%)

Incineration with sludge (65%)

Sludge

(concentrated washingeffluent)

11 000 t

(36,500 t gross with30% DM)

Incineration with wool dust (65%)

Agricultural spreading in the form ofcompost (35%)

Potassic ash

(residue from incineratingsludge and dust)

3 000 t Agricultural spreading (homologatedproduct, potassic additive) (100%)


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

230

Comments

Investment in combating pollution from by-products must be geared to the amount of washedwool produced by the factories. Reductions in the amount of wool being treated in the mid-1990s has, in fact, caused some factories to shut down. The largest units have installedeffluent treatment plant on site and are no longer connected to the communal urban drainagesystem. This represents a considerable investment for a sector where added value is low andcompetition from the Asian countries (where labour is much cheaper) is very strong. Somefactories producing large amounts of washed wool have even invested in incineratorsdimensioned according to the amount of by-products produced by their initial treatmentprocedures.

During the 1990s, the amount of wool treated reduced considerably and these treatmentplants and over-sized incinerators were no longer profitable, causing the companies to fail.Incineration, an onerous procedure, was no longer profitable and the sludge was instead usedfor agricultural spreading, a more economic method of disposal.

It is essential for this sector to have sludge and by-product treatment tools that perfectlymatch the amount of wool being washed. Any variations in the amounts coming in must berecognised as quickly as possible, so that external contracts can be found to enable theincinerators to maintain their profitability. The selection of methods of disposal for wool-washing/wool-combing by-products is simply a matter of cost. In fact, this sector, with its lowadded value, employs a lot of labour. Nowadays, there is drastic competition from Asiancountries, where labour is much cheaper. The world price continues to fall and pressure onthe French industry increase because of the need to comply with environmental regulationsand the effects of the 35 hour week. The sector is finding it difficult to keep going and thereasons for factories closing can readily be understood.

The cost of washing/combing is 5 Francs, on raw material costing 30. Of these 5 Francs, 2 to2.5 Francs comprise labour costs. Since it produces a lot of by-products, the industry’s choiceof disposal method is therefore purely economic. Nowadays, agricultural spreading isfavoured over landfill or incineration, except where incinerators are profitable in certainfactories treating large volumes of wool. To make not insignificant savings, the factories areattempting to reduce their water consumption and have in fact reduced this from 30 litres ofwater/kg of wool washed to 10 litres of water/kg. Many work with a re-circulating system,retreating and purifying the water as it leaves the process (sheep odour). Currently, pollutionremoval costs can be estimated as 7 to 9 cent-euro of the material sales price per kg of woolwashed. The merchants have a margin of around 2%.

As regards in-house incineration in factories with their own incinerator, the maximum cost hasalready been achieved; the tonnage of wool being washed cannot be allowed to decrease.The cost of agricultural spreading will probably increase over the next few years.

The general public is more tolerant of incineration than agricultural spreading because it isgenerally unaware of the principles of agricultural recycling. People do not wish to have anuisance near their homes (smells, traffic, etc).

The industry is collaborating with all its colleagues from other European countries in theinitiation of environmental research programmes with support form the EuropeanCommission.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

231

• The EXCOLOUR programme

The EXCOLOUR programme aims to develop oxidisation technology to eliminate 90% of thecolouring materials in effluent before its release into the natural environment.

These oxidisation techniques must also destroy the AOXs (Absorbable Organic Halogens)and improve the COD/BOD ratio, in order to increase the biodegradability of the effluent frombiological purification plants.

This study is as yet incomplete but would seem to prioritise the use of ozone, combined eitherwith oxygenated water or UV irradiation; the costs of the treatment envisaged, however, wouldbe in excess of 2 to 3 euros m-3.

• The SYNBLEACH programme

The SYNBLEACH programme has only just begun and should enable better measurement ofthe environmental impact of the various bleaching methods, in order to reduce the productionof AOXs.

AOX flow thrown back in water courses by the textile processing industry are importantbecause they represent 10,4% (54 kg / d) of flows thrown back by all the industries. (source :Artois Picardie water agency, 1999).

• The BATEM programme

The BATEM programme is by far the most ambitious.

This involves the development of a veritable expert system integrating most of the dyeingprocesses, attached to a database containing the ecological parameters of a considerablenumber of dyestuffs and chemical products currently on the market.

The aim is to enable simulations to be made to obtain dyeing mixtures with minimum impacton the environment, while still remaining within economically acceptable limits.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

232

Leather and Tanning Industries

The amount of pollution from tanneries and tanning plants was estimated in 1989 to be5130 tonnes of organic and suspended material contained within the effluent.

The problem of recycling purified sludge, whether combined with other waste or not, is linkedto the economic and technical collection conditions, statutory constraints (on agriculturalspreading, etc.) and the cost of the energy sources for which certain forms of recycling couldsubstitute.

Whether in liquid or solid form, purified sludge from tanneries and tanning plants are rich innitrogen-bearing material (total nitrogen 2 to 5% of the dry material) and are therefore likely tobe of interest to farmers as additives. However the spreading of such substrata is oftenblocked because of its heavy metal content, particularly chromium, for which the regulationsset strict tolerance levels both in sludge and in the soil.

Different methods of treatment and disposal are used:

• Methanisation

Successful experiments have been conducted on purified sludge mixed with untanned wastein a ratio of 82%:18%. 450 m3/week of biogas, containing 74% methane to feed a digester,have been obtained with mixtures of 45-50 g l-1 of dry material. This represents three-quartersof the organic load in the waste being eliminated in the form of energy. However, only largerfactories (>20 t day-1) or groups of factories can make a profitable return on such aninvestment. Furthermore, at a time when the cost of fossil fuel is low, the profitability ofinvesting in bio-methanisation remains uncertain.

• In-house Incineration

Tannery waste has a PCI (4000 to 8000 Kcal kg-1, depending on the level of dry material)suitable for incineration techniques and specific forms of exploitation, which sometimes makesthe production of energy in-house advantageous (particularly for hot water). There are caseswhere tanneries produce up to one-fifth of their thermal energy requirements in this form.However, such methods of recycling require control of the chromium levels in the sludge toenable the ash to be used for landfill purposes.

Within the French tanning and tawing industry, the most common method of disposing ofpurified sludge and tanned waste is still their use in landfill sites. Recycling to energy isselected wherever technically and economically feasible.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

233

Sugar Beet-Processing, Sugar Refining Industries

The sugar and distilling industries, primary and secondary transformation industriesrespectively, convert the sucrose in sugar beet into sugar and alcohol. Sugar refining involvesextracting sucrose from sugar beet, while distilling companies complete this extraction bybiologically transforming the sucrose into ethanol and other components.

The sugar and distilling sectors produce large quantities of different kind of wastes and by-products. These constitute mostly valuable materials for farmers which ought to be returned toagricultural land. The industry generates liquid and solid wastes such as:

• Earth-laden suspensions from trucks and beet washing containing soil, grass and rootwaste;

• Stones and• Sedimentation sludge.

The sugar and distilling processes also generate by-products which in France are consideredas homologated products with fertilising properties and are covered by quality standards (NFUnorms) which means that a spreading programme is not required and that this material can besold to the farmers to be recycled to land or feed to animals. This includes:

• Pulp;• Decarbonatation sludge; and• Distillation vinasses.

Sludge from on-site effluent treatment plants

At present, 5 out of the 37 sugar refineries currently operating in France possess an on-sitetreatment plant for their effluent. These plants are of the biological type and frequently treatrefinery effluent arising from:

• Sugar-refining activities (sedimentation water, vegetable juice and condensed watersuspensions),

• Operating units (liquid sugar rectification, demineralisation, ethanol distillation units).

National figures for the overall tonnage of sugar refinery sludge are not available.

Waste from washing

Transport and beet-washing water comprises the largest part of the effluent pollution fromrefineries and distilleries. The beets tend to be damaged during transport and washing, whichcan cause some loss of sugar through diffusion. This loss of sugar results in a fermentationprocess and a significant COD (chemical organic demand) at the season end.

Methanisation of the washing and transport water is possible. A digester is installed at thehead of the circuit circulating the sludge-bearing water, enabling the COD level to becontained at around 2000 mg l-1 throughout the season. It should be recalled that at the end ofthe season the COD for the sludge-bearing water is between 15 and 20,000 mg l-1.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

234

Beet washing produces three different types of solid waste:

• the soil coating (10 to 30% of the beet’s gross weight);

• grass and roots;

• stones and other inert material (clumps of earth, etc.).

Soil and green waste

Soil from the coating is found in the sedimentation tanks (the preliminary stage in recyclingwater from transporting and beet washing – see below). The amount of soil coating dependson the harvesting equipment used and, particularly, on the climatic conditions duringharvesting. Very wet soil tends to cling to the beet when it is removed and is thereforetransported, ipso facto, to the refinery.

Grass and roots are removed by sieving and beet-blasting water (a water cannon jets wateronto the base of the beet stock) or by some other grass removal system.

The soil coating constitutes around 20% of the beet’s gross weight. Green vegetable matter(grass and roots) constitutes on average 3% of the gross weight. Treatment of 30 milliontonnes of beet by the French sugar-refining industry therefore produces the followingamounts:

• 6 million tonnes of earth;• 900,000 tonnes of green vegetable matter.

Spreading is carried out either directly, in the form of earth-laden suspensions, either mixedwith juice from pressing the vegetable matter, or following precipitation in a sedimentationtank. Around 30% of earth-laden suspensions are spread immediately during the harvestingseason, 70% are stored in sedimentation tanks.

The green vegetable matter is destined for:

• pressing, with the juice being incorporated with the earth-laden suspensions;

• mixing with pulp for use as animal feed after drying;

• return to the farmer in the form of dried vegetable matter for use as cattle feed or forspreading.

Stones and inert material

The stones are used in landfill sites or for roads and paths. For the refinery, transport of thistype of waste also represents a significant burden.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

235

Sludge from Sedimentation Tanks

Sugar refineries temporarily store the beet-washing water in sedimentation tanks where thesuspended material (the coating soil) precipitates to the bottom of the tank. Sedimentationtanks can be former excavations. Spreading sludge from cleaning out the tanks requires anauthorisation dossier if not effected as part of the sugar refinery’s spreading programme.

Sugar refinery sedimentation tank sludge comprises a mixture of soil and water, containing50% dry material. The soil has been enriched with organic material, nitrogen, phosphorus andpotassium by the beet-washing water.

Sedimentation tank sludge is used for:

• filling in excavations;• covering over landfill sites;• green spaces (golf courses, lawns, etc.);• laying out housing estates;• agricultural spreading.

The particular use is selected according to the available opportunities for reducing transportas much as possible, with the nearest recycling method being favoured. Some excavationsare filled with sedimentation sludge and reforested or brought under cultivation.

Sugar-Refinery Mud Sludge

The beets are cut into cossettes that can then diffuse sugar by percolation. Adding an inactivelime solution purifies the diffusion liquid (arising from this operation) – this is thedecarbonatation process.

The by-products created during the decarbonatation process are called sugar refinery mudsludge (or decarbonatation mud sludge).

Such mud sludge can appear in three forms:

• liquid mud sludge with 45 – 50% dry material;• tank mud sludge with 50 – 55% dry material;• pressed mud sludge with 60-70% dry material.

It is estimated that treating one tonne of beet produces around 60 kg of mud sludge. Followinga storage period, the mud sludge, with an average dry material content of 50%, may undergodehydration in a filter press, producing a dry material content of 70% (pressed mud sludge).

Mud sludge is delivered to the farmers in June, at the edges of the fields. All mud sludge isdestined for use as fertiliser. Its high lime content (400 to 500 kg of Ca CO3 per tonne of mudsludge) makes it an excellent additive for maintaining or correcting the calcium levels in thesoil, some 8 to 30 tonnes ha-1 being applied every 3 to 4 years.

Mud sludge also contains other fertilising elements, in particular phosphorus (P2O5 = 1%),magnesium (MgO = 1%) and organic material (10%), as well as potassium, nitrogen, boron


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

236

and sulphur in small quantities. It is generally reserved for farmers supplying the sugar-refining industry and provided at a moderate cost designed to recover the cost of transport.

Sugar refinery mud sludge is a standardised product not a waste covered by norm NFU44001 and classed as a calcium additive. Compilation of a spreading programme is notrequired to spread the sludge and it is sold to farmers at varying prices throughout thecountry. Norm NFU 44001, covering calcium additives and magnesium, is currently underreview and will apparently become a norm covering basic additives.

Comments

The regulations applicable to the sugar refining industry in France are considered to beappropriate. Earth-laden suspensions and sedimentation sludge are subject to authorisations.

The regulations regarding vulnerable areas pose no problems with regard to spreading earth-laden suspensions. This is type 1 fertiliser, enabling spreading to be carried out during thesugar season.

The industry is currently awaiting details of the future tax on nitrogen (TGAP). This tax canhave repercussions on farmers through its effect on the purchase price for sugar refineryby-products.

No increase in the prices for the various methods of eliminating the by-products has beennoted. The selling price for sedimentation sludge depends on demand. As an indication, theprice can be estimated at 4.6 Euros per tonne of sludge for loading, unloading and transportof one tonne of sludge over a distance of 20-30 km.

Sugar refinery by-products do not cause environmental damage and their high levels oforganic matter and nitrogen-laden material enable synthetic additives to be avoided.Agricultural recycling enables purification of the organic and nitrogen-laden material of theorder of 98% (source: Agency for the Artois-Picardie catchment area).

The industry is expecting increases in the costs of non-homologated by-products owing to theadditional costs of agronomic monitoring (number of product analyses, soil analyses, etc.).

Increases in the disposal costs will stimulate the sugar-refining industry even more to considermethods of reducing the production of by-products.

The amount of coating soil, for instance, is much higher in France than in other Europeancountries despite financial incentives to sugar refiners. The industry is encouraging farmers tosupply clean beats to reduce earth-laden suspensions to a minimum.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

237

Abattoir and rendering industry

There are very few on-site effluent treatment plants in this industry. Often only pre-treatmentis carried out. There are no disposal figures available. Many abattoirs are connected to thecommunal sewer system.

Abattoir by-products, considered as waste in the strictest sense, and can be sources of waterpollution:

• Liquid and solid manure from cattle stalling,• Blood, where this is not completely recovered,• Stomach contents.

Manure

Manure waste is only produced by abattoirs processing beef. It is currently undergoingchange both quantitatively and qualitatively. Two factors affect these changes:

• technical stalling conditions centred around the animal’s health before its slaughter;• the desire to reduce the volume of droppings in abattoirs.

The amount of solid manure is tending to diminish in favour of liquid manure while, at thesame time, abattoirs are industrialising and modernising. The volume of faecal matter to beprocessed by the abattoirs must be restricted, particularly in areas of dense animal farmingwhere recycling the manure to agriculture can pose a problem. Transport times and the periodof stalling before slaughter are therefore constrained (to reduce stress on the animals). Thepreference is for slaughtering animals without feeding and watering them on the site.

While the waste is generally processed and recycled to agriculture for fertilisation purposes(spreading programmes, etc.), a proportion is disposed of into the water system. The amountof liquid manure involved has not been evaluated. Total disposal of solid and liquid manure isestimated at 150 000 tonnes.

Stomach contents

The quantity of animal stomach contents nationally can be estimated at around 580,000tonnes (Source : Ademe, 1995). They are generally disposed of by agricultural spreading. 3%of the total amount can be estimated as being lost in abattoir effluent (i.e. around 17,000tonnes).


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

238

Meat and Food Processing Industry Sludge

Food industry sludge from meat processing activities is characterised by:

• significant levels of organic material;• high levels of nitrogen-bearing material

Blood is the worst source of pollution. In fact, if the estimated volume discharged within theindustry’s effluent corresponds to 20-30% of the potential waste products, this means 58 to72 kt of blood are discharged as effluent.

Generally, used water from the food industry is analogous in composition and, essentially, isrecorded throughout the processing procedures, from slaughter to final destruction:

• cleaning and washing water (area, equipment, carcasses, etc.;• transportation water (stomach contents, feathers, viscera);• cooling water;• domestic water from the sanitary facilities.

All the effluent generally ends up in the municipal sewer system after more or less extensivepre-treatment (sieving, straining and degreasing). Installations equipped with full-scale effluenttreatment plants are rare; they are seldom found in small food-processing units because oftheir cost. The problems posed by this effluent from traditional treatment processes (biologicalor physical-chemical treatment to a greater or lesser extent) are caused by:

• significantly high organic material levels, depending in particular on the amount of bloodbeing recovered and the presence of stomach content liquid in the effluent

• significant fluctuations in these levels.

These characteristics often make it difficult to obtain treatment levels compatible with thecapacity of the receiving surface water.

The aim of the treatment process is to remove suspended material (SM) and restrict theamount of dissolved organic material involved in the sludge’s formation.

There are two main components:

• primary sludge, easily sedimentable, with 3 to 5% dry material and therefore very liquid;• biological or secondary sludge, representing organic solutions with 5% dry material.

Biological sludge extracted after traditional degreasing, straining and prolonged biologicalaeration treatments contains between 0.7 and 1 kg of dry material with BOD removed(averaged from samples taken from 11 abattoirs).

Physical-chemical sludge contains around 80 g kg-1 of dry material with BOD removed. The Nand P20 levels are 7-8% and 5% respectively.

The above-mentioned survey also shows probable operating costs of Euro 0.3 kg-1 of BODremoved, i.e. Euro 5/t of carcasses. Effluents can directly be spread.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

239

Milk and Dairy Products Industry

There is no data available on the total quantities of dairy wastes produced in France.Suspended materials in dairy industry sludge comprise products created by the flocculation ofprotein materials, partially or totally degraded, and bacteria associated with biologicaldegradation and various organic and mineral residues.

Characteristically at this stage they exhibit strong resistance to dehydration. From theagronomic point of view, this sludge is particularly suitable for agricultural use as an organicfertiliser. Since the production units are often located in rural areas, they are also likely to findfavourable spreading areas quite easily.

Agricultural recycling therefore offers a very favourable solution to the producers of dairyindustry sludge.

Water is practically never used in the manufacturing process but is specifically used for:

• thermal transfers;• washing certain products (butter, curds, etc.);• cleaning churns, cisterns, manufacturing apparatus and the floors.

The washing and cleaning water therefore essentially contains diluted milk constituents and,occasionally, buttermilk and whey: lactose, nitrogen-laden material and fatty material. It canalso contain chemical products from the laboratories and cleaning products from theinstallations and their residues.

The volume of waste recorded per litre of milk treated by each factory depends on theproducts, the amount of buttermilk and whey being recovered, and how much washing wateris recycled.

The following bands can be determined:

Activity Effluent

Powdered milk 1 to 5 litres

Powdered milk plus butter 2 to 3 litres

Butter 1 to 3 litres

Cheese 2 to 4 litres

Multi-product factories 2 to 6 litres

Rigorous separation of the cooling water is necessary to reduce the volumes requiringtreatment.

The amount of pollution from factories in the dairy industry is subject to wide fluctuations, onboth a seasonal (heavy milk collection from March to May, average collection from August toFebruary) and a daily basis (a very high peak during the washing period).

Water from the dairy industry can be purified using one of the following techniques:


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

240

• biological treatment: either individually through prolonged aeration (0.2 to 0.4 kgDBO5/m3/day) or mixed with domestic and/or industrial effluent;

• agricultural spreading (spread dairy effluents average composition is exposed opposite);

• physical-chemical treatment (little employed).


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

241

Wine-Producing Sector

Residual water or effluent from wine cellars is a major source of pollution since it is rich insuspended solids, COD and BOD. It is treated by simple sedimentation or aerated and thenspread.

No national estimates of the amounts of effluent produced appear in the data available on thecellars.

Only the Rhone Mediterranean Corsica Water Board has analysed this waste in terms ofoxidisable material in its region (which represents 70% of French wine production), providinga figure of 30 t per day during the harvesting season. This amount is equivalent to thepollution produced by 1 million people.

Other Food and Drink Sectors

There is no national estimate of the amounts of effluent or sludges produced by industrialsectors listed below which rely on the agricultural outlet:

- starch industry;

- ready-cooked dish industry;

- soft drink industry

- distillery industry

- brewery industry

- canning industry

- malthouse industry; and

- plants dehydration industry.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

242

Drinking Water Industry

Most of the sludge produced comes from:

• Clarification: all the operations designed to remove suspended solids from untreated water,as well as the pollutants associated with such suspended material. This often involvescoagulation-flocculation by means of the addition of a chemical reagent.

• Partial or total removal of carbonates: The addition of lime softens the water byprecipitating carbonates that could encourage suspended solids, thus helping to clarify thewater.

• Removal of organic or physical-chemical iron

• Removal of organic or physical-chemical manganese

The various treatments are followed by sedimentation and/or filtration, leading to the formationof residual sludge.

Hydroxide Sludge or Sedimentation Residues

Sludge arises primarily from the separation operations, i.e.:

• purging the sedimentation and flotation tanks (representing 90% of sludge production);• washing the filters (10 % of sludge production).

It represents on average 2 to 8% of the volume of water treated by drinking water plants.

Sedimentation and filter washing sludge is classed as mineral sludge, with its metal hydroxidecontent varying between 30 and 70% of the total dry material and its organic matter contentvarying between 10 and 30%.

Origin of the untreated water Amount of sludge producedduring treatment(g m-3 of water)

River of average quality 25 - 45

River in winter spate 65 – 150

Backwaters 80 - 95

Dammed water, clear water, river near to its source 2 - 15

Estuary 70 - 140

The production of hydroxide sludge by drinking water plants can vary greatly over time both interms of quality and in quantity. This is due to variations in the levels of suspended materialwithin the untreated water (for example during a spate), which can involve modifying the


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

243

treatment methods, and to variations in drinking water demand, and therefore in the volume ofwater to be treated.

An overall average of 30g of sludge is produced per m3 of water treated. Based on 4.7 billionm3 treated per year, the theoretical amount of sludge produced per year is therefore in theorder of 150,000 t year-1.

Decarbonation Sludge

The decarbonation process is based on precipitating calcium and magnesium bicarbonatesinto calcium, magnesium and even magnesia carbonates by the addition of a chemicalreagent. This reagent is generally lime.

The waste from this treatment process is therefore sludge primarily composed of calciumcarbonate.

Biological Sludge

Many bacteria are capable of oxidising iron, manganese, nitrates and ammonium biologicallyand fixing them to the outside or inside of their envelopes. These bacteria are present withinthe filtration material or float freely in the water to be treated.

Sludge arising from biological treatment essentially comprises bacteria (biomass) andcomprises 40 to 90% organic material. Determining the amount of sludge produced bybiological treatment processes depends on the treatment plant’s efficiency in eliminating therequisite parameters. In biological treatment, the activity of the bacteria in the filter is directlylinked to the temperature, pH and dissolved oxygen content. Seasonal variations in theseparameters influence the bacteria growth rate and therefore the cleaning frequency. This iswhy it is difficult to estimate precisely the volume of waste produced by biological treatment.

Regarding the production of dry material as a consequence of biological treatment,classifications by Haubry (among others) in 1979 (SPDE) provides the following results:

Untreated waterquality

Sludge production

Iron-laden borehole water 0.2 to mg l-1 in Fe Biological sludge:

6.5 g of dry material g-1

of Fe removed

Nitrate-laden borehole water 50 to 100 mg l-1 in NO3 Biological sludge:

0.23 g of dry material g-1

of NO3 removed

Table E15 summarises the different disposal outlets for waterworks sludge.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

244

Table E15 Final outlets for waterworks sludge (SPDE 1999)

Agriculturalrecycling

Discharge into thedrainage network

Class II landfilling

Hydroxide sludge X X X

Sludge fromdecarbonatation processes

X

Biological sludge X X

Sedimentation residues and drinking water by-products do not present any intrinsicallyinteresting properties. In most cases, they are composed of inert aluminium or iron hydroxidesand for this reason cannot claim to have any agricultural value.

It is possible, however, to envisage some partial recycling and reuse to avoid their being usedfor landfilling (which is what happens in the majority of cases). Their use in spreading can beenvisaged in terms of a calcium enrichment when dealing with sludge incorporating lime fromthe treatment process or containing CaCO3 or Ca(OH)2 in the sediment, due to the watertreatment itself (decarbonatation). Agricultural spreading is carried out at a rate of 1 tonne ofCaO per hectare, an agriculturally beneficial dosage.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

245

Alternative Methods Currently Being Studied

The following are some other methods of recycling that are currently being studied:

• Incorporation into roadway embankments: This generally involves localised use whichdoes not enable a treatment method to be designed for it alone but can be considered asan ad hoc possibility.

• Incineration: This proves to be inadvisable in view of the lack of calorific value of this typeof sludge (very low levels of volatile material).

• Incorporating sludge into brick or tile mixes, coatings and colloidal concrete.

• Use as waste stabilisation reagents

• Use to cover landfill deposits: Sludge from drinking water processes would be used torehabilitate landfill sites, but this technique requires an additional fertile medium betweenthe sludge and the covering vegetation.

• Industrial water: This concerns the case of waste from regenerating denitrification resins atthe Arguenon-Penthièvre factory, which sends its water to the company, TIMAC (situatedsome 35 km from the factory), which produces fertiliser. For the company, this representsthe contribution of 700 kg of nitrates per day and a not inconsiderable amount of water,free of charge, for six months of the year.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

246

Dredging of watercourse

The silting up of watercourses is a natural phenomenon, accentuated by urban and industrialwaste, which increases the quantity of silt and affects its nature. Some watercourses requireregular clearing, involving the removal of the silt deposited on the bottom and sides of theriver bed.

A large quantity of silt has to be removed every year from water courses; between 0.5 to 1 m3

of silt is generally extracted per linear metre. In the North of France, the county most directlyaffected, more than 400,000 m3 of silt are removed every year (representing around 200,000 tof DM/year). Over 20 French counties are involved in dredging activities.

The silt is not treated at present. Two recycling methods are employed:

• Spreading on riverside land,• Banking (laying in strips along the banks).

These practices are becoming increasingly compromised and are increasingly beingabandoned because of the toxic nature of the silt and the large quantities to be removed.

There is increasing recourse to storage on specific sites, i.e.:

• storage in confinement sites, but transporting liquid silt is a delicate operation;• removal to temporary sites (for around six months), which enables the sludge to clarify

naturally before its transportation to a final confinement site.

Other methods being researched are:

• two-phase dredging, separating more polluted silt from more earth-laden silt;• removing the pollution from the dredged silt.

These new techniques are more costly than banking or spreading and there is the problem offinancing them. It is most improbable that any mechanical dehydration processes will beundertaken in the medium term, since this would increase costs even more.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

247

Chemical industry

Chemical industries union estimates total amounts of sludges from on-site wastewatertreatment from the chemical sector at about 700 000 tonnes of raw sludge (180 000 tonnes ofdry solids). The disposal outlets are summarised in Table E16.

Table E16 Disposal options for chemical industry sludge

Sludgedisposal outlet

Agriculture Landfill Incineration

Tonnages of DS 72 Kt 45 Kt 63 Kt

% 40% 25% 35%

Ref: Chemical industry union

Comments

Recycling has been favoured by the chemical industries in France since it has a lowenvironmental impact and, above all, the least onerous solution. The cost of agriculturalspreading will probably increase over the next few years.

The general public is more tolerant of incineration than agricultural spreading because it isgenerally unaware of the principles of agricultural recycling. People do not wish to have anuisance near their homes (smells, traffic, etc).


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

248


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

249

E3 PROPERTIES OF WASTE SPREAD ON LAND

Farm waste

Solid manure

Manure is a mixture of bedding and animal droppings decomposed to a greater or lesserextent. Animal manure is an heterogeneous product which chemical composition (Table E17)varies according to:

• the animal category;• the basic feedstuffs;• the type of building;• the methods of mulching practised, etc.

What is more, between their being produced in the building and their being spread on the landthe products undergo aerobic and anaerobic fermentation, loss of elements through run-offand liquid percolation. Table E15 represents solid manures average composition (ITAB,1995).

Nutrient and organic matter

The presence of organic matter of vegetable origin (straw, other types of bedding, etc.)confers on it a “soil-producing” character and it can evolve into a humus offering long-termstability to the soil.

It is an organic amendment rich in fertilising elements, particularly nitrogen and phosphorus.These elements are present to a greater or lesser degree in organic form. Their release istherefore progressive. It is important to take the effects of this breakdown of the manure intoaccount when making fertiliser calculations.

Poultry farming methods and the high dry material content in poultry droppings result in areduced use of bedding material. Poultry droppings are therefore of a low “soil-producing”character but have higher levels of fertilising elements than other animal droppings. They aremore similar therefore to organic fertiliser than additives.

It is estimated that 50 to 80% of nitrogen is available in manure if application is regular orannual and 30 to 45% if application is only occasional. For poultry droppings, the percentageof mineralised nitrogen is estimated at 60 to 65% in the first year.

The proportion of phosphorus present in organic form is released gradually throughmineralisation by the micro-organisms in the soil. The significant amount of organic matterpresent in the manure creates better availability of the phosphorus to the soil.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

250

Table E17 Composition of manure

Animal type DM(%)

OM C/N pH Total N P2O5 K2O CaO MgO

(%ds)

(%ds)

Dairy cow(free stabling)

25 72 14 7.8 2.2 1.4 3.2 2 0.8

Dairy cow(not freestabling)

21 - - - 2.2 1.5 2.1 - -

Beef cattle 24 62 - 7.3 1.6 1.5 1.7 1 0.6

Calves 19 68.5 - 7.8 1.2 0.5 1.4 0.9 0.3

Pigs 21 76 - 6.0 2.9 2.9 1.9 2.9 1.2

Sheep 30 77 23 8.1 2.2 1.4 3.7 3.7 0.5

Goats 48 - - - 1.3 1.1 1.2 - -

Horses 54 76 - - 1.5 0.6 1.7 - 0.4

Edible poultry 58 83 11 6.8 4.4 3.7 3.6 2.5 0.6

Turkeys 54 80 10.5 6.9 4.4 4.6 3.8 4 0.8

Ref.: Guide des matières organiques – ITAB, 1995

The fertiliser equivalent coefficient for the phosphorus in cattle, sheep, goat and horse manureis estimated as being 1, this means that effectiveness of the phosphorus is equivalent to thatof mineral fertiliser if applied annually.

Since potassium is almost exclusively only present in urine, little is found in solid manurecompared to liquid manure. Just like in liquid manure, the potassium present is almost all inmineral form (mineral salts over 80% soluble in water). It is therefore highly available toplants. Its effectiveness can be considered as equivalent to that of mineral fertiliser. Thebehaviour of magnesium closely resembles that of potassium in both solid and liquid manure.Calcium, primarily present in solid faeces, is also found in manure and effectiveness is closeto that of mineral fertiliser.

Health risks

Manure contains pathogenic elements, whose quantity varies according to the animals’ healthand the method of farming. The risk is higher when spreading on grassland, since pathogenscould possibly be transmitted to grazing animals.

It is particularly important to maintain a suitable interval between spreading and puttinganimals out to pasture; the pathogenic elements are generally short-lived outside theirpreferred environment. This interval is established by county health regulations.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

251

Risks associated with the presence of heavy metals

Tables E18 and E19 show trace metals solid manures average composition.

Table E18 Solid manure composition in trace elements (ppm DS)

Type of animal Cu Mn Zn Fe

Dairy cows (Free stabling) 32 600 - -

Beef Cattle - - 67 8 642

Broilers 140 - 253 -

Turkey 144 - 307 -Ref.: Guide des matières organiques – ITAB, 1995

Table E19 Bovines solid manure composition in potentially toxic elements (ppm DS)

Ag As Cd Co Cr Cu Hg Mo Ni Pb Se Zn

Beef1 0.3 15 71 8 8 357

Beef2 0.09 6.8 0.7 2.23 17.5 <0.4 9.6 7.5

Beef3 0.7-1.1

11-22

0.1-0.2

15-34

75-1??

Dairy cow4 24.6 10.6 79

Horse5 1 0.3 6 6 0.02 1.9 6 5.2 0.07 33

Broiler4 0.9 5 25.7 <0.1 6 15 151

Poultry6 35.1 0.3 2.3 5.7 743 4.5 9.7 2.6 0.9 501

Ref.:

1 Semence et progrès No 95 (1998) quoted by Colombé 19982 Raven and Loeppert 19973 Six et al 19994 MCEA 19985 MAP 19996 Jackson et al 1999

Manure also contains trace elements. The use of mineral supplements and veterinaryproducts during rearing increases the levels of these elements. In fact, over 95% of theseelements are not assimilated by the animals and end up in their droppings. This is particularlythe case with Cu (through the use of copper sulphate as a growth stimulator) and Zn (presentin fungicides).

Risks associated with the presence of organic micro-pollutants

The presence of this type of molecule in manure has been little researched at present.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

252

Slurry

Slurry is a liquid mixture of faeces and urine with a certain amount of bedding or animal feedintermixed. Slurry is primarily produced by pig farms but is also produced by cattle and poultryfarms.

Distinction is made between:

− Slurry which contains less than 10% dry matter and tends to be homogeneous.

− Straw-bearing slurry which contains 10 to 20% dry matter and tends to be heterogeneous.

Nutrient content

Liquid manure is effectively very rich in mineral, and particularly ammoniacal, nitrogen (50 to70% of the nitrogen present when liquid manure is spread regularly every year). Theammoniacal element can be rapidly assimilated by plants. In spring conditions, the nitrificationtime is less than one month. Table E20 shows slurry average composition (ITAB, 1995). Thesecond nitrogen component comprises organic nitrogen. This can be mineralised rapidly(given the low C/N ratio). The percentage of nitrogen released in the first year is estimated asbeing 70 to 90%, depending on the liquid manure’s origin.

There is also a significant risk of leaching, depending on the quantity of nitric nitrogen present.

Phosphorus is mainly present in the solid part of the droppings. Liquid manure contains littlephosphorus compared to solid manure. On the other hand, the proportion of mineralphosphorus is very high:

− 80% of the total phosphorus in liquid manure from pigs and cattle;− 60% in the liquid manure from poultry.

Phosphorus and potassium in slurry are equally as effective as in chemical fertilisers. Theproportion of phosphorus present in organic form is released gradually. For liquid manurefrom pigs, the coefficient is estimated as being 0.85 and is 0.65 in the case of liquid manurefrom poultry. Potassium is almost exclusively only present in urine, and almost all in mineralform (mineral salts over 80% soluble in water). The behaviour of magnesium closelyresembles that of potassium.

Calcium is primarily present in solid faeces. It is estimated that the calcium content of liquidpig and cattle manure is sufficient to compensate for the acidification effect of the ammoniumcontributed by the liquid manure. Application of liquid manure does not therefore contribute toacidification of the soil.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

253

Table E20 Liquid manures composition with regard to raw materials (ITAB, 1995)

DM OM C/N pH Total N NH4+ P2O5 K2O CaO MgO

(%) (% DS)

Dairy cow 12 46 8 7.1 4.2 2.1 2.1 5 2 0.6

Beef cattle 15 71 - 7.2 3.5 2.1 2.1 3.3 3 1

Calves 1.9 53 - 7.4 14 11 11 20 1.6 1.6

Fattening pigs(Flour feeding)

8 87 - 7.6 6.9 4.4 8.1 3.7 4.4 1

Fattening pigs

(Wheyfeeding)

6 67 - 6.8 9.2 5.8 10.8 5 5.8 1.3

Lactating sows 10 69 - 7.4 5.5 3.6 6.5 2.4 6.7 1.5

Piglets 9 75 - 7.2 7.1 3.9 6.4 2.3 5.4 2

Laying hens 26 70 - 7.1 4.1 2.9 4 2.8 15.7 1.2

Broilers 33 72 - - 4.8 - 3.6 82.6 2.7 0.4

Turkeys 44 82 - - 7.4 1.6 4.8 1.7 5.3 0.8

Ducks 39 - - - 2.8 - 3.6 1.3 - -

Rabbits 26 70 - 8.5 3.3 0.7 5.2 2.9 5.3 1.3

Health risks

Level of pathogens in manures are compared with sludge from dairy industry and sewagesludge (Table E21). It is important to maintain a suitable interval between spreading andputting animals out to pasture. The relevant interval is generally a minimum of 30 days.

Table E21 Comparison between pathogen level in animal manure and in sludge (nper litre)

Slurry Dairy sludge Sewage sludge(untreated)

Aerobic pathogens 3.5 x106 6.2 x 106 7.3 x 107

Staphylococcus 9 x 106 8 x 102 1 x 103

Coliforms 2 x 105 2.9 x 103 6.1 x 103

Streptococcus - 5.3 x 103 3.6 x 103

Salmonella + + +

Ref: Syprea 1997Note: + present


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

254

Risks associated with the presence of heavy metals

Table E22 shows pig slurry average composition (Meeus – Verdinne et al, 1996).

Table E22 Average levels of trace elements in pig slurry (ppm of dry material)

Reference Cd Cr Cu Ni Pb Zn

Nord – Pas-de-Calais Chamber of Agriculture 0.3 18 488 14 12 784

MCEA 1998 2.9 - 607 - - 1586


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

255

Paper Industry

Table E23 shows the average composition of the sludge released by the various factories.De-inking or mixed sludge tends to be drier than normal purification plant sludge, with anaverage value of around 37%.

Agricultural value

This derives primarily from the higher levels of mineral content in de-inking sludge than innormal sewage sludge.

The primary constituents are carbon, calcium carbonate and, generally, aluminium silicate(kaolin). The significant level of carbon derives from the fibre content (around 25% carbon, i.e.50% fibre, in the dry material) and produces a high carbon/nitrogen ratio (average C/N = 50).Metal content is low, significantly lower than the maximum permissible values.

Paper industry sludge is a mixture of cellulose fibre (40 to 60% of dry material), printing inksand mineral components (40 to 60% dry material: kaolin, talc, calcium carbonate).

Its characteristics are:

• Low levels of fertilising elements (N, P, K);• A very high C/N ratio (50);• High levels of calcium carbonate (5 to 25%);• Low levels of trace metals.

Trace metals

Paper industry sludge contains very few trace metals, given that the paper process, fromwhich the sludge derives, is based on vegetable fibre (wood) or the recycling of old paper.The natural amounts of trace metals and cellulose fibre found in wood are therefore reflectedin purification plant sludge.

As for the de-inking process, the metal content of ink has been significantly decreased overthe past 15 years and nowadays contains fewer and fewer trace metals, in compliance withthe food regulations. De-inking sludge therefore also contains few trace metals.

Trace organic compounds

Trace organic compounds do not constitute any particular problem. Table E24 shows contentof organic compounds in pulp and paper sludges. Bleaching using chlorine can create toxicnon biodegradable organo-chlorinated compounds such as chlorophenols and dioxins. Tobleach 1 tonne of paper, 50 to 80 kg of chlorine gas is required and 10% of it is dischargedinto the water, sludge and air. Chlorine dioxide is less polluting than chlorine. Bleaching pulpby oxygen or hydrogen peroxide processes enable to reduce the use of chlorine agents andmodify the levels of organic chlorinates in the de-inking sludge produced.

Ash from paper industry


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

256

The availability of compounds in ash from pulp and paper industry is 100 % for K2O, CaO andMgO and 70% for P2O5. The average composition of ash is given in Table E25.

Table E23 Average Composition of Paper Sludge

Parameter Unit De-inkingsludges or

mixedsludges

Sewagesludges

Sewagesludges -company

without oldpapers

Weightedmean

Dry matter % 46 34 37 37

C % DS 24.6 29.4 22.3 25.1

Kjeldahl N % DS 0.4 2.4 0.6 1.1

C/N Ratio 62 12 37 23

water pH 7.2 – 8.8

P2O5 % DS 0.2 1.1 0.3 0.5

K2O % DS 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

MgO % DS 6.5 1.8 1.1 2.7

CaO % DS 20 9 16 15

Cadmium mg/ kg DS 4.1 1.1 0.7 1.7

Chromium mg/ kg DS 44 20 16 25

Copper mg/ kg DS 169 61 34 78

Mercury mg/ kg DS 1.6 0.3 0.2 0.6

Nickel mg/ kg DS 32 16 12 18

Lead mg/ kg DS 26 27 13 21

Zinc mg/ kg DS 169 183 122 153

Sample survey: 56 firms using old paper and 45 not using old papers (Source: CTP –1995)

Table E24 Organic compounds in pulp and paper sludge (ppm ds)

Compound Min Max Number of analyse

Fluoranthene 0.01 <0.1 16

Benzo (b) fluoranthene <0.005 0.04 16

Benzo (a) pyrene <0.005 0.03 16

Sum of 7 PCBs 0.002 <1 16


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

257

Table E25 Average composition in ash from paper industry

Element Unit Min Max Mean Nbre Standarddeviation

Dry solids % 99 100 99 6 0.6

C/N ratio 1 45 15 6 31

pH 12.1 12.9 12.5 6 0.6

N-TK % DS 0.01 0.11 0.07 6 0.07

CaO % DS 19 30 25 6 7.8

MgO % DS 1.5 2.9 2.2 6 0.9

P2O5 % DS 1.4 3.8 2.7 6 1.6

K2O % DS 1 1.6 1.3 6 0.4

Cadmium –Cd mg/kg DS 6.4 13.6 9.3 6 5.1

Chromium – Cr mg/kg DS 104 165 138 6 43

Copper – Cu mg/kg DS 177 241 199 4 45

Mercury – Hg mg/kg DS 0.08 0.3 0.2 6 0.16

Nickel – Ni mg/kg DS 65 74 70 6 6.7

Lead-Pb mg/kg DS 629 758 714 6 91

Zinc-Zn mg/kg DS 1930 2945 2548 4 718

Cr+Cu+Ni+Zn mg/kg DS 2306 3819 3028 6 1070


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

258

Textile Industry

Table E26 presents the average composition of textile processing sludge. This information isextracted from SEDE own database.

Table E26 Average composition of textile processing sludges

ELEMENTS Unit Min Max Mean Nber Standarddeviation

Dry solids % 2.3 27 14 33 9.87

C/N Ratio 7 12 8 33 1.83

water pH 5.8 12.8 7.9 33 1.95

Organic matter % DS 16 91 73 33 23.36

NTK % DS 2.7 7.7 5.5 33 1.82

CaO % DS 0.7 43 7.3 33 13.74

MgO % DS 0.3 0.8 0.5 33 0.17

P2O5 % DS 1.1 5.4 2.9 33 1.44

K2O % DS 0.2 1.8 0.8 33 0.61

N-NH4 % DS 0.06 1.1 0.4 30 0.32

SO3 % DS 0.1 2.4 1.6 2 1.08

Na2O % DS 3.6 3.6 3.6 33

Cadmium - Cd mg/kg DS 0.1 1.2 0.5 40 0.33

Chromium -Cr mg/kg DS 7.4 430 70 40 136.3

Copper – Cu mg/kg DS 38 892 235 40 284.88

Mercury - Hg mg/kg DS 0.1 3.1 0.8 40 0.98

Nickel – Ni mg/kg DS 8.2 31 15 40 8.67

Lead – Pb mg/kg DS 2.3 22 12 40 7.3

Zinc - Zn mg/kg DS 65 1249 296 40 368.09

Selenium - Se mg/kg DS 1.8 5.4 4.6 40 1.55

Cr+Cu+Ni+Zn mg/kg DS 157 1509 594 40 473.36

Fluoranthene mg/kg DS 0.06 1

Benzo (b)fluoranthene

mg/kg DS 0.05 1

Benzo (a) pyrene mg/kg DS 0.02 1

Sum of 7 PCB mg/kg DS 0.01 1

Ref: SEDE Data base – 2000


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

259

The following table (Table E27) compares the levels of trace metals in textile industry sludgewith those in domestic sludge.

Table E27 Comparison of trace metal levels in textile industry sludge and domesticsludge (SEDE database)

Average levels for thetextile industry sludge

(SEDE database)

Permissiblelimit %

Average levels for urbansludge (SEDE database)

Permissiblelimit %

Cd 0.5 2 1.4 7

Cr 70 7 38 4

Cu 235 23 329 33

Hg 0.8 8 2.3 23

Ni 15 8 26 13

Pb 12 1 73 9

Zn 296 10 535 18

Higher levels of chromium are noted than in domestic sludge but these still remain below thelimits established for agricultural recycling. These relatively high levels of chromium are due tothe use of metal-bearing dyestuffs.

The aim is to replace the chemical products considered to be the most polluting, difficult toeliminate or of a toxic nature in the outflow from biological purification plants with productswith a lower environmental impact on the water quality, or that are more readilybiodegradable.

Heavy metals are present in metal-bearing dyestuffs and also in certain direct or reactivedyestuffs. Colorants or pigments containing heavy metals are particularly found in blue orgreen dyestuffs (phyalocyamines). Other dyestuffs, that do not contain heavy metals, can besubstituted to produce these shades.

For certain dyeing processes, products likely to hinder biodegradability can arise from thefixing processes carried out to improve the dye’s resistance to light or washing. This is thecase with dyestuffs employing direct colorants, which form less soluble metal-bearingcompounds when treated with copper or chromium salts.

Since chromium and copper salts are toxic, an attempt is now being made to avoid their use.The most common subsequent treatment nowadays involves treating the dyed cloth with acationic quaternary ammonium product to form a less soluble compound with the dyestuff,which has an anionic nature.

Wool-washing/wool-combing industry by-products characteristically contain few trace metals.Potassic ash and wool dust are homologated as fertilising materials. These by-products canalso contain trace organic compounds from the treatment of fleeces with pesticides. Theseare transferred to the washing water when the wool is washed and end up in the sludge.Degraded versions of these pesticides can therefore be found in the sludge.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

260

Wood dust and wood washing concentrated sludges average qualitative analyses areexposed in Tables E28 and E29.

Table E28 Average composition of wool washing concentrated sludge

ELEMENTS unit Min Max Mean Nber Standarddeviation

Dry matter % 64 66.60 65.50 57 1.56

C/N 36 41 38 57 3.54

PH 8 8.4 8.2 57 0.28

Organic matter % DS 61 61 61 57 0.07

CaO % DS 0.8 0.8 0.8 57 0.02

MgO % DS 0.3 0.3 0.3 57 0.03

TKN % DS 1.4 1.4 1.4 57 0.01

P205 % DS 0.2 0.9 0.5 57 0.48

K20 % DS 7.5 7.8 7.6 57 0.23

Na2O % DS 3.1 3.9 3.5 57 0.59

Cadmium in mg/kg DS 0.7 0.7 0.7 39 0.02

Chromium in mg/kg DS 20 20 20 39 0.07

Copper in mg/kg DS 12 26 19 39 9.48

Mercury in mg/kg DS 0.1 0.1 0.1 39 0.00

nickel in mg/kg DS 9 9 9 39 0.28

Lead in mg/kg DS 9 11 10 39 1.41

Selenium in mg/kg DS 7.9 7.9 7.9 39

Zinc in mg/kg DS 95 95 95 39 0.57

Cr+Cu+Ni+Zn in mg/kg DS 137 145 141 39 5.37

Fluoranthene in mg/kg DS < 0,01 0.04 < 0,025 8

Benzo (b) fluoranthene in mg/kg DS < 0,01 < 0,01 < 0,01 8

Benzo (a) pyrene in mg/kg DS < 0,01 0.01 < 0,01 8

Sum of 7 PCB in mg/kg DS < 0,05 < 0,05 < 0,005 8Source: SEDE Data base - 1999


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

261

Table E29 Average composition of wool dust

ELEMENTS Unit Mean Nber

Dry matter % 92 40

Water pH 7.2 40

C/N Ratio 6 40

Organic matter % DS 61 40

CaO % DS 0.8 40

MgO % DS 0.2 40

TKN % DS 5.5 40

P205 % DS 0.2 40

K20 % DS 0.9 40

Na2O % DS 0.02 40

Cadmium - Cd in mg/kg DS 0.3 40

Chromium - Cr in mg/kg DS 20 40

Copper - Cu in mg/kg DS 19 40

Mercury - Hg in mg/kg DS 0.1 40

nickel - Ni in mg/kg DS 8.2 40

Lead - Pb in mg/kg DS 8.9 40

Selenium - Se in mg/kg DS 5.2 40

Zinc total - Zn in mg/kg DS 100 40

Cr+Cu+Ni+Zn in mg/kg DS 147 40

Fluoranthene in mg/kg DS 0.03 8

Benzo (b) fluoranthene in mg/kg DS 0.01 8

Benzo (a) pyrene in mg/kg DS 0.01 8

Sum of 7 PCB in mg/kg DS 0.01 8Ref: SEDE Data base - 2000


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

262

Tannery

Table E30 Composition of a tawing wastes compost (SEDE database 2000)

ELEMENTS Compost of tawingwastes

Dry solids (% RP) 55

C/N Ratio 10,30

water pH 6


Organic matter 71,84

Organic carbon 43

NTK 4,20

P2O5 0,28

K2O 0,57

Heavy metals (ppm = mg/kg DS)

Chromium -Cr 45

Copper - Cu 17

Nickel - Ni 11

Lead - Pb 22

Zinc - Zn 110

Tin - Sn <10

Cr+Cu+Ni+Zn 183


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

263

Sugar Beet-Processing, Sugar Refining industries

The average composition of sugar industry effluents is presented in Table E31 (SEDEDatabase –1999). Average composition of sugar refinery sludge takes is presented in tableE32 and the average composition of sugar refinery mud sludge is presented in Table E33.

Table E31 Average composition of spread green juice from sugar processingindustry (Sede database, 2000)

ELEMENTS Unit Min Max Mean Nber

pH 3,8 3,9 3,9 8

Suspended materials mg/l 422 1776 1093 8

COD mg/l 02 15372,00 33267,00 22073,00 8

NTK mg/l 108,20 263,12 154,00 8

NH4 mg/l 15,00 24,00 18,30 8

NO3 mg/l <0,05 <0,05 <0,05 8

P205 mg/l 45,80 82,70 72,05 8

K20 mg/l 638,00 1186,00 941,00 8

MgO mg/l 58,60 99,90 74,60 8

CaO mg/l 612,00 911,00 745,60 8

Cl mg/l 411,30 767,00 565,00 8

Na mg/l 159,40 194,60 175,00 8


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

264

Table E32 Average composition of sugar processing industry sludge

ELEMENTS Sugar processing sludge

Dry solids (% ) 35,05

C/N Ratio 4,90

water pH from 8,5 to 12,6


Organic matter 29,27

NTK 2,99

CaO 24,19

MgO 0,68

P2O5 3,05

K2O 0,29


Cadmium - Cd <0,42

Chromium -Cr 25,15

Copper - Cu 35,25

Mercury - Hg 0,53

Nickel - Ni 19,52

Lead - Pb 13,92

Zinc - Zn 114,57

Selenium - Se <5,5

Cr+Cu+Ni+Zn 194,49


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

265

Table E33 Chemical composition of standard mud sludge ( J.P. VANDERGETEN)

Data in relation to gross weight Average Range

Dry material (%) 60.1 50 – 70

N (kg/tonne) 3.7 3 – 5

P2O5 (kg/tonne) 9.2 1.5 - 18

K2O (kg/tonne) 0.7 0.2 - 2

MgO (kg/tonne) 9.6 5 - 20

CaCO3 (kg/tonne) 460 320 - 540

Organic material (kg/tonne) 94 60 - 150


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

266

Abattoir and rendering industry

Stomach content

The qualitative analyses are extracted from the national SEDE database and are presented inTable E34.

Table E34 Slaughterhouse stomach contents (SEDE database, 2000)

ELEMENTS Min Max Nber Mean Standarddeviation

Dry solids (% RP) 15,5 21,15 2 18,33 4,00

C/N Ratio 16,6 27,1 2 21,85 7,42

water pH 7,68 9,7 2 8,69 1,43


Organic matter 88,18 92,80 2 90,49 3,27

Organic carbon 48,00 48,00 1 48,00

NTK 1,77 2,86 2 2,31 0,77

N-NH4 0,01 0,14 2 0,08 0,09

CaO 0,82 1,76 2 1,29 0,67

MgO 0,11 0,19 2 0,15 0,06

P2O5 1,06 1,19 2 1,13 0,09

K2O 0,52 0,71 2 0,617 0,13

Oligo elements and sulphur (ppm = mg/kg DS)

Sulphur - SO3 2 3782,50

Iron - Fe 1 1850,00

Boron - B 1 21,57

Cobalt - Co 1 1,08

Manganese - Mn 1 216,00


Cadmium - Cd 0,3 0,5 2 0,40 0,14

Chromium -Cr 2,47 11,39 2 6,93 6,31

Copper - Cu 7,32 51,09 2 29,21 30,95

Mercury - Hg 0,1 0,13 2 0,115 0,02


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

267

ELEMENTS Min Max Nber Mean Standarddeviation

Nickel - Ni 3,01 6,3 2 4,66 2,33

Lead - Pb 2,11 4,65 2 3,38 1,80

Zinc - Zn 51,85 111,96 2 81,91 42,50

Cr+Cu+Ni+Zn 64,65 180,74 2 122,70 82,09


Fluoranthene 0,017 0,37 2

Benzo (b) fluoranthene < 0,005 0,64 2

Benzo (a) pyrene < 0,005 0,2 2

Sum of 7 PCB < 0,01 < 0,5 2


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

268

Meat processing industry

Effluents can directly be spread. Table E35 presents average composition of effluents (SEDE,database, 1999). Table E34, extracted from the SEDE database, shows the characteristics ofsludge from meat industry waste water treatment plants.

Table E35 Average composition of Slaughterhouse effluents (SEDE Database –1999)

ELEMENTS Unit Min Max Mean Nber Standard

deviation

pH 7,7 7,9 7,8 6 0,14

Suspended materials mg/l 339,2 520,6 429,9 6 128,27

COD mg/l 02 519,20 999,00 759,10 6 339,27

NTK mg/l 75,63 152,10 113,86 6 54,07

N-NH4 mg/l 38,60 106,50 72,55 6 48,01

N-NO3 mg/l 0,07 2,27 1,17 6 1,56

P205 mg/l 0,07 29,80 14,93 6 21,02

K20 mg/l 49,44 51,48 50,46 6 1,44

MgO mg/l 10,97 179,11 95,04 6 118,89

CaO mg/l 177,10 178,64 177,87 6 1,09

Cl mg/l 89,90 106,40 98,15 6 11,67

Na2O mg/l 70,88 169,83 120,35 6 69,97


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

269

Table E34 : Average composition of slaughterhouse sludge (SEDE Database – 1999)


Dry solids % 8,16 25,1 15,94 4 8,58

C/N Ratio 5,9 24,3 13,38 4 7,94

water pH 6,9 12,6 8,95 4 2,50

Organic matter % DS 60,30 87,60 78,92 4 12,65

Organic carbon % DS 44,55 46,60 45,58 2 1,45

NTK % DS 1,90 8,02 4,43 4 2,60

N-NH4 % DS 0,10 0,17 0,13 3 0,04

CaO % DS 3,53 16,10 7,11 4 6,01

MgO % DS 0,00 0,53 0,27 4 0,26

P2O5 % DS 1,67 4,78 3,00 4 1,47

K2O % DS 0,15 0,82 0,53 4 0,30

Sulphur-SO3 (mg/kg DS) 29260,00 1

Boron-B (mg/kg DS) 0,80 1

Cadmium - Cd (mg/kg DS) 0,4 0,6 0,50 3 0,10

Chromium -Cr (mg/kg DS) 11,5 61,9 36,56 4 27,35

Copper - Cu (mg/kg DS) 23,96 210 139,37 4 80,48

Mercury - Hg (mg/kg DS) 0,1 1,19 0,398 4 0,53

Nickel - Ni (mg/kg DS) 7,7 28,9 16,21 4 9,13

Lead - Pb (mg/kg DS) 10,69 54,25 25,21 3 25,15

Zinc - Zn (mg/kg DS) 132,83 1099 588,28 3 485,45

Cr+Cu+Ni+Zn (mg/kg DS) 183,29 1355,8 703,89 4 507,09

Fluoranthene (mg/kg DS) <0,1 1

Benzo (b) fluoranthene (mg/kg DS) <0,1 1

Benzo (a) pyrene (mg/kg DS) <0,1 1

Sum of 7 PCB (mg/kg DS) <0,007 1

Source:


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

270

Milk and Dairy Products Industry

The sludge composition varies according to the dairy products and characteristics. The TableE37 below shows average compositions. Average composition of dairy effluents, according toSEDE data, is shown in Table E38. Table E39 presents average composition of dairy sludge.

Table E36 Average dairy industry sludge composition (Source: Vandamme andR. Van Renterghem 1981)

Dry material%

As a % of dry material

MO N totalN

NH4C/N P2O5 K2O CaO Mgo

Untreated dairy sludge 1.7 71.0 9.5 0.3 3.1 8.0 0.9 5.0 0.6

Bed-dried dairy sludge 9.6 62.0 7.0 0.6 4.8 7.0 0.6 5.6 0.5

Concentrated dairysludge

4.9 72.0 7.5 0.6 4.8 8.5 0.8 4.9 0.7

Table E37 Average composition of dairy effluents


pH 4.02 5.20 4.61 10 0.84

Suspended materials mg/l 1224.00 1759.33 1491.67 10 378.54

COD mg/l 02 6329.70 13309.86 9819.78 10 4935.72

TKN mg/l 140.80 249.54 195.17 10 76.89

P205 mg/l 41.70 322.01 181.86 10 198.21

K20 mg/l 47.65 260.03 153.84 10 150.17

MgO mg/l 6.65 18.63 12.64 10 8.47

CaO mg/l 147.58 264.75 206.17 10 82.85

Cl mg/l 172.65 1465.68 819.17 10 914.31

Na2O mg/l 648.60 959.40 804.00 10 219.77

NH4 mg/l 24.38 52.58 38.48 10 19.94

NO3 mg/l 4.32 55.44 29.88 10 36.15Source: SEDE Data base - 1999


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

271

Table E38 Average composition of dairy sludge


Dry matter % 1.27 42.50 8.29 33 13.05

C/N Ratio 3.66 6.33 4.80 33 0.79

Water pH 6.32 12.51 7.39 33 0.48

Organic matter % DS 36.96 83.48 69.98 33 8.47

CaO % DS 1.85 32.21 8.27 33 3.47

MgO % DS 0.28 3.45 1.00 33 0.86

TKN % DS 3.93 10.98 7.77 33 0.79

NO3 % DS 0.00 0.00 0.00 33 0.00

NH % DS 0.00 3.32 1.21 33 0.81

P205 % DS 2.46 16.32 7.71 33 4.42

K20 % DS 0.47 3.98 1.48 33 0.92

SO3 % DS 1.20 3.95 2.36 3 1.94

Na2O % DS 0.37 4.10 1.89 2 0.00

Cadmium in mg/kg DS 0.10 1.20 0.34 40 0.13

Chromium in mg/kg DS 8.63 40.30 21.08 40 11.38

Copper in mg/kg DS 13.50 66.20 29.06 40 14.57

Mercury in mg/kg DS 0.07 4.44 0.64 40 1.61

nickel in mg/kg DS 5.80 25.35 12.95 40 6.24

Lead in mg/kg DS 1.40 39.71 14.06 40 10.97

Sélénium in mg/kg DS 0.40 5.50 2.28 40 0.94

Zinc in mg/kg DS 68.16 709.61 293.26 40 197.25

Cr+Cu+Ni+Zn in mg/kg DS 114.35 792.71 355.28 40 203.47

Fluoranthene in mg/kg DS 0.01 0.3 0.11 8

Benzo (b) fluoranthene in mg/kg DS 0.01 0.05 0.04 8

Benzo (a) pyrene in mg/kg DS 0.01 0.06 0.03 8

Sum of 7 PCB in mg/kg DS 0.021 0.21 0.11 8Source: SEDE Data base - 1999


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

272

Water Content

Purified dairy industry sludge is in liquid form and possesses low levels of dry material (1 to2%) as it leaves the sedimentation tank. The usual practice of storing in concentration silos fortwo months produces levels of dry material of 3.5 to 4%, which can rise to 6% given goodhomogenisation within the silo. Seeking to obtain more concentrated sludge can also be ofvalue, particularly if the spreading area lies far away from the purification plant.

By using centrifugal equipment, band filtration, etc., dry material levels of up to 12-13% can beobtained, with a favourable effect on product storage and transport costs. Treatment with limecan produce dry material levels of the order of 25%.

Organic Material

The dry material in dairy industry sludge comprises 60 to 80% readily degradable organicmaterial, as evidenced by its C/N ratio, which is generally close to 5. This product is nottherefore capable of increasing the stock of humus in the soil in the dosages generally appliedand cannot therefore be considered as an organic additive.

Nitrogen

Dairy industry sludge is rich in nitrogen, on average 6.5% of the dry material; 85 to 90% of thisnitrogen is in organic form and 10 to 15% in ammoniacal form. Nitrogen is used as the mainparameter for assessing the sludge’s value as fertiliser. It is estimated in general that 60 to90% of the total nitrogen can be assimilated in the first year, owing to this type of sludge’srapid mineralisation.

Phosphorus

The phosphoric anhydride level (P2O5) is generally quite high: representing 7 to 8% of the drymaterial, but this value can vary between 3 and 12%. A good proportion of the P2O5 is insoluble form in the interstitial liquid (up to 25%). This element’s overall effectiveness isgenerally good, with assimilation levels of around 70%, compared with those of monocalcicphosphates.

Potassium

Potassium levels in dairy industry sludge are almost negligible, with average levels of 0.4% ofdry material. On the other hand, its availability to the plants is certainly in excess of 90%. Tomeet the plant’s needs, mineral potassium must also be applied to complement thecontribution from the sludge.

Calcium and Magnesium

One cubic metre of sludge with 2.5% DM contains around 1.6 kg of lime, a not inconsiderableamount contributing to maintain the soil. The somewhat lower level of magnesia comprises1/5 to 1/10 that of the lime.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

273

Trace Metals

Levels of heavy metals and other trace elements in dairy industry sludge are generally low(see Table E34). Prior systematic analysis enables the harmless nature of the sludge to beestablished. In particular, the levels of mercury are studied, whose presence may be linked tothe analytical methods or the methods of conservation used by certain dairies’ laboratories.

Table E39 Levels of heavy metals (in ppm/DM) in dairy industry sludge (Ref:Agricultural recycling of dairy industry sludge – ANRED – 1987)

Zn Cu Ni Cr Cd Pb Hg

Dairy industry sludge150 to300

25 to 45 5 to 30 15 to 40 1 to 7 30 to 90 1 to 7

Health Aspects

The hygiene conditions prevailing in dairies ensure that the sludge is low in pathogenicbacteria.

Odours

The odours sometimes released during spreading stem from poor stabilisation at thepurification plant.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

274

Wine-Producing Sector

Qualitative data from SEDE on effluent and sludge produced by wine cellars is in Table E35for wine production sludge and Table E36 for wine production effluent.

Table E40 Average composition of wine production sludges

ELEMENTS Unit Mean Nber

Dry matter % RP 2.44 5

Organic matter % DM 67 5

CaO % DM 1.6 5

MgO % DM 0.32 5

TKN % DM 5.17 5

P205 % DM 1.41 5

K20 % DM 1.6 5

C/N Ratio 6.49 5

Water pH 7.4 5

Cadmium - Cd in mg/kg DM 1.84 3

Chromium - Cr in mg/kg DM 55.67 3

Copper - Cu in mg/kg DM 38.2 3

Mercury - Hg in mg/kg DM 130.64 3

nickel - Ni in mg/kg DM 8.03 3

Lead - Pb in mg/kg DM 7.54 3

Zinc - Zn in mg/kg DM 176 3

Selenium - Se in mg/kg DM 0.9 3

Cr+Cu+Ni+Zn in mg/kg DM 465.12 3Source: SEDE Data base - 1999


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

275

Table E41 Average composition of wine production effluents


Water pH 4 6.15 36 5.08 0.59

Suspended materials mg/l 152 916 36 451.28 266.68

DCO mg/l 02 2706.33 23000 36 9553.50 5607.27

TKN mg/l 17.5 181.67 36 52.19 50.90

P205 mg/l 7 30 36 15.17 9.18

K20 mg/l 170 1282 36 427.11 334.13

MgO mg/l 6.73 45 36 19.27 12.12

CaO mg/l 52.48 240 36 105.43 65.21

Cl mg/l 24.97 108.67 28 62.98 33.45

Na2O mg/l 50 379.25 32 144.04 100.57

Source: SEDE Data base - 1999


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

276

Other food processing sectors

Qualitative data from SEDE database on effluents and sludges produced by other food anddrink processing industries take place in tables below.

- Sludge from starch industry (Table E42)

- Effluent and sludge from ready-cooked dish industry (Tables E43 and 44)

- Effluent and sludge from soft drink industry (Tables E45 and 46)

- Effluent and sludge from distillery industry (Tables E47 and 48)

- Sludge from brewery industry (Table E49)

- Effluent and sludge from canning industry (Tables E50 and 51)

- Sludge from malthouse industry (Table E52)

- Effluent from plants dehydration industry (Table E53)


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

277

Table E42 Average composition of starch industry sludge (SEDE 2000)

ELEMENTS Min Max Mean Nber SD

Dry solids (%) 15,1 71,4 44,40 31 28,22

C/N Ratio 12,4 14,69 13,55 31 1,62

water pH 6,4 12,6 9,06 31 3,19


Organic matter 28,25 75,5 46,55 31 25,36

Organic carbon 19,34 21,9 20,62 31 1,81

NTK 1,55 7,6 3,58 31 3,48

N-NH4 0,03 0,07 0,05 29 0,03

CaO 6,16 28,8 14,58 31 12,38

MgO 0,12 0,69 0,42 31 0,29

P2O5 1,41 7,1 3,38 31 3,22

K2O 0,11 1,1 0,48 31 0,54

Cl 0,14 0,14 0,14 16

Na2O 0,92 0,92 0,92 16


Cadmium - Cd 0,16 0,6 0,43 24 0,23

Chromium -Cr 8,79 53,7 27,83 24 23,22

Copper - Cu 12,85 39,2 22,75 24 14,34

Mercury - Hg 0,1 0,21 0,16 24 0,06

Nickel - Ni 10,86 39,4 27,16 24 14,7

Lead - Pb 3,75 6,74 4,80 24 1,68

Zinc - Zn 36,51 545 215,77 24 285,5

Selenium - Se 5,15 5,15 5,15 24

Cr+Cu+Ni+Zn 82,71 677 291,19 24 334,48


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

278

Table E43 Average composition of ready-cooked dish industry effluent (Sededatabase, 2000)

ELEMENTS Unit Min Max Mean Nber SD

pH 6,30 7,70 6,93 18 0,71


Agricultural value

COD mg/l 02 456,00 11439,00 7391,67 18 6034,35

NTK mg/l 75,00 346,36 174,79 18 149,24

NH4 mg/l 2,00 159,00 61,67 18 85,01

NO3 mg/l 0,05 0,16 0,09 18 0,06

P205 mg/l 36,00 91,00 55,84 18 30,53

K20 mg/l 69,60 1123,51 432,90 18 598,35

MgO mg/l 44,82 103,45 64,92 18 33,38

CaO mg/l 92,40 2170,42 1265,74 18 1064,74

Cl mg/l 131,00 11634,40 4267,80 18 6395,76

Na2O mg/l 141,75 10193,31 3774,87 18 5574,67


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

279

Table E44 Average composition of ready-cooked dish industry sludge (Sededatabase, 2000)

ELEMENTS Min Max Mean Nber SD

Dry solids (%) 3,91 19,11 13,82 22 6,25

C/N Ratio 3,65 14,43 7,93 22 4,10

water pH 6,60 9,14 7,70 22 0,97


Organic matter 47,00 84,40 73,48 22 15,44

Organic carbon 43,22 43,60 43,41 6 0,27

NTK 2,83 12,28 6,09 22 3,88

N-NH4 0,16 1,74 0,95 14 1,12

CaO 1,63 9,48 3,91 22 3,20

MgO 0,30 1,15 0,66 22 0,34

P2O5 1,26 7,79 3,25 22 2,71

K2O 0,42 3,51 1,81 22 1,26

SO3 0,76 0,76 0,76 2

Oligo elements (ppm = mg/kg DS)

Boron - B 94,07 94,07 94,07 2


Cadmium - Cd 0,55 2,28 1,21 21 0,82

Chromium -Cr 11,76 108,24 41,03 21 39,46

Copper - Cu 10,01 92,00 40,34 21 32,04

Mercury - Hg 0,08 0,57 0,19 21 0,21

Nickel - Ni 7,16 54,15 23,25 21 18,51

Lead - Pb 7,90 16,25 12,20 21 3,67

Zinc - Zn 85,17 481,30 242,56 21 158,37

Selenium - Se 0,41 6,00 2,09 21 2,62

Cr+Cu+Ni+Zn 156,28 562,39 347,23 21 197,15


Fluoranthene 0,30 1

Benzo (b) fluoranthene 0,05 1

Benzo (a) pyrene 0,06 1

Sum of 7 PCB 0,02 1


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

280

Table E45 Average composition of soft drink industry effluent (Sede database, 2000)

ELEMENTS Unit Min Max Mean Nber SD

pH 4,30 5,97 5,02 18 0,74


Agricultural value

COD mg/l02

2260,00 11668,50 6589,50 11 4748,82

NTK mg/l 2,20 339,00 109,22 18 157,56

NH4 mg/l 0,13 52,68 17,94 15 30,09

NO3 mg/l 0,02 1,34 0,62 15 0,67

P205 mg/l 1,20 177,02 70,95 18 78,55

K20 mg/l 16,10 666,44 314,64 18 280,54

MgO mg/l 2,16 83,89 34,59 18 35,45

CaO mg/l 27,05 460,34 187,75 18 191,46

Cl mg/l 38,90 66,50 52,70 8 19,52

Na2O mg/l 37,40 270,54 190,65 11 132,76

SO3 mg/l 807,00 807,00 807,00 6


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

281

Table E46 Average composition of soft drink industry sludge (Sede database, 2000)

ELEMENTS Min Max Mean Nber Standard deviation

Dry solids (%) 2,23 15,90 7,48 5 7,37

C/N Ratio 5,95 10,60 7,95 5 2,39

water pH 4,70 6,85 5,70 5 1,08


Organic matter 43,90 68,16 57,52 5 12,40

NTK 3,58 5,35 4,22 5 0,98

NH4 0,16 1,16 0,68 3 0,50

CaO 2,06 3,26 2,50 5 0,66

MgO 0,45 0,47 0,46 5 0,01

P2O5 2,25 3,70 2,74 5 0,83

K2O 1,16 2,24 1,52 5 0,62


Cadmium - Cd 0,50 0,56 0,53 3 0,04

Chromium -Cr 34,20 35,56 34,88 3 0,96

Copper - Cu 33,70 41,30 37,50 3 5,37

Mercury - Hg 0,10 0,11 0,11 3 0,01

Nickel - Ni 15,79 19,60 17,70 3 2,69

Lead - Pb 15,78 28,50 22,14 3 8,99

Zinc - Zn 148,90 320,40 234,65 3 121,27

Selenium - Se 5,00 5,57 5,29 3 0,40

Cr+Cu+Ni+Zn 233,90 305,00 269,45 3 50,28


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

282

Table E47 Average composition of distillery effluent (Sede database, 2000)



pH 4,64 7,00 5,82 20 1,67

C/N 8,36 13,00 10,68 10 3,28

Agricultural value

COD mg/l 02 22167,00 22167,00 22167,00 14

Organic matter mg/l 10718,00 17500,00 14109,00 17 4795,60

Organic carbon mg/l 5,36 5,36 5,36 10

NTK mg/l 654,18 815,00 734,59 20 113,72

NH4 mg/l 9,62 166,44 88,03 16 110,89

NO3 mg/l 1,75 1,75 1,75 16

P205 mg/l 221,00 518,90 369,95 20 210,65

K20 mg/l 2545,18 2581,90 2563,54 20 25,96

MgO mg/l 146,41 173,26 159,84 18 18,99

CaO mg/l 455,14 1676,97 1066,06 20 863,96


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

283

Table E48 Average composition of distillery sludge (SEDE 2000)

ELEMENTS Min Max Mean Nber Standarddeviation

Dry solids (%) 5,98 15,90 9,29 43 7,01

C/N Ratio 5,95 17,57 9,82 11 8,22

water pH 4,34 6,85 5,18 11 1,77


Organic matter 43,90 76,00 54,60 11 22,70

Organic carbon 22,22 22,22 22,22 2

NTK 2,84 3,74 3,14 11 0,64

NH4 0,16 0,33 0,22 11 0,12

CaO 2,17 2,50 2,28 11 0,23

MgO 0,47 0,50 0,48 11 0,02

P2O5 2,17 2,26 2,20 11 0,06

K2O 1,16 9,86 4,06 43 6,15


Cadmium - Cd 0,06 0,10 0,08 2 0,03

Chromium -Cr 2,29 9,00 5,65 2 4,74

Copper - Cu 22,70 84,40 53,55 2 43,63

Mercury - Hg 0,10 0,27 0,19 2 0,12

Nickel - Ni 0,96 8,00 4,48 2 4,98

Lead - Pb 1,12 13,40 7,26 2 8,68

Zinc - Zn 53,60 142,00 97,80 2 62,51

Cr+Cu+Ni+Zn 79,55 243,40 161,48 2 115,86


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

284

Table E49 Average composition of brewery industry sludge (Sede database, 2000)


Dry solids (%) 4,67 45,50 25,08 6 28,87

C/N Ratio 4,60 5,60 5,10 5 0,71

water pH 7,30 10,40 8,85 6 2,19


Organic matter 24,60 24,60 24,60 2

NTK 1,49 2,33 1,91 6 0,59

NH4 1,47 1,47 1,47 2

CaO 8,90 28,30 18,60 6 13,72

MgO 0,54 0,54 0,54 2

P2O5 2,66 4,74 3,70 6 1,47

K2O 0,66 0,66 0,66 2


Cadmium - Cd 0,60 1,19 0,90 6 0,42

Chromium -Cr 25,00 240,45 132,73 6 152,35

Copper - Cu 30,00 379,50 204,75 6 247,13

Mercury - Hg 0,11 0,75 0,43 6 0,45

Nickel - Ni 20,00 47,81 33,91 5 19,66

Lead - Pb 6,00 16,00 11,00 5 7,07

Zinc - Zn 175,00 534,60 354,80 5 254,28

Cr+Cu+Ni+Zn 250,00 1750,30 1000,15 6 1060,87


Fluoranthene 0,17 2

Benzo (b) fluoranthene 0,02 2

Benzo (a) pyrene 0,03 2

Sum of 7 PCB 0,07 2


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

285

Table E50 Average composition of canning industry effluent (Sede database, 2000)


deviation

pH 3,7 7,6 4,73 118 1,24

Suspended materials mg/l 148,8 4272 1202 118 1123,9

Agricultural value

COD mg/l 02 951,00 20132,00 9810,00 118 6143,30

NTK mg/l 40,00 341,00 164,05 118 102,50

N-NH4 mg/l 3,20 170,00 51,10 61 55,07

N-NO3 mg/l 0,10 2,00 0,63 61 0,73

P205 mg/l 20,09 125,00 60,70 118 32,22

K20 mg/l 110,00 729,00 345,00 118 181,60

MgO mg/l 17,00 85,00 38,92 118 20,44

CaO mg/l 37,00 1907,48 345,50 118 552,57

Cl mg/l 99,00 1200,00 552,60 118 365,86

Na2O mg/l 70,00 1271,57 434,20 118 337,93

Heavy metals

Total Cadmium -Cd µg/l 1,98 1,98 1,98 2

Total Chromium - Cr µg/l 46,39 46,39 46,39 2

Total Copper - Cu µg/l 10 257 133,50 7

Total Mercury - Hg µg/l 6,62 6,62 6,62 2

Total Nickel - Ni µg/l 53,23 53,23 53,23 2

Total Lead - Pb µg/l 33,4 100 66,70 7

Total Zinc - Zn µg/l 200 989,2 594,60 7

Cr+Cu+Ni+Zn µg/l 1345,6 1345,6 1345,6 2


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

286

Table E51 Average composition of canning industry sludge (Sede database, 2000)


Dry solids (%) 2,11 5,48 3,89 16 1,69

C/N Ratio 4,40 5,80 5,04 16 0,71

water pH 7,00 7,05 7,03 16 0,03


Organic matter 37,96 53,32 46,70 16 7,90

Organic carbon 22,99 30,22 26,11 16 3,71

NTK 3,70 6,22 5,20 16 1,32

N-NH4 0,95 1,28 1,11 16 0,23

CaO 3,32 7,14 4,89 16 1,99

MgO 0,47 0,69 0,61 16 0,12

P2O5 2,84 5,35 3,71 16 1,42

K2O 1,90 2,83 2,44 16 0,48


Cadmium - Cd 1,76 3,90 2,85 13 1,07

Chromium -Cr 47,40 54,69 50,23 13 3,91

Copper - Cu 72,36 125,50 102,89 13 27,44

Mercury - Hg 0,10 0,13 0,11 13 0,02

Nickel - Ni 34,60 42,30 37,28 13 4,35

Lead - Pb 16,10 23,50 19,26 13 3,82

Zinc - Zn 592,20 719,76 651,45 13 64,26

Selenium - Se 5,30 5,30 5,30 13

Cr+Cu+Ni+Zn 786,20 881,74 841,85 13 49,68


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

287

Table E52 Average composition of malthouse sludge (Sede database, 2000)


Dry solids (%) 3,16 13,1 9,88 16 3,13

C/N Ratio 4,9 6,5 5,51 16 0,49

water pH 6,1 8,1 6,83 16 0,76


Organic matter 75,5 93,52 86,27 16 5,67

NTK 6,7 9,6 8,74 16 1,02

N-NH4 0,54 1,77 1,06 8 0,57

CaO 1,29 38,9 7,51 13 13,89

MgO 0,57 3,9 1,51 8 1,60

P2O5 3,45 7,7 5,20 16 1,42

K2O 0,9 2,23 1,46 16 0,43


Cadmium - Cd 0,3 1,5 1,07 12 0,47

Chromium -Cr 3,77 9,01 6,27 12 2,02

Copper - Cu 48,2 78,9 56,45 12 10,63

Mercury - Hg 0,1 0,52 0,20 12 0,15

Nickel - Ni 9,4 13,8 11,43 12 1,75

Lead - Pb 4,89 20,1 13,01 12 6,93

Zinc - Zn 542 1815 1070,32 12 558,37

Cr+Cu+Ni+Zn 607,8 1890,7 1144,46 12 563,64


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

288

Table E53 Average composition of plants dehydration industry effluent (Sededatabase, 2000)


deviation

pH 7 7,8 7,35 14 0,34

Suspended materials mg/l 120,7 2210 730,8 14 991,66

Agricultural value

COD mg/l 02 434,70 10837,00 3420,68 14 4967,74

NTK mg/l 45,30 679,00 274,40 14 280,00

NH4 mg/l 25,00 463,00 177,78 14 195,14

NO3 mg/l 0,05 1,20 0,35 14 0,57

P205 mg/l 11,40 245,87 101,12 14 101,04

K20 mg/l 75,15 893,60 333,03 14 383,29

MgO mg/l 20,80 84,88 43,12 14 28,48

CaO mg/l 37,20 769,60 269,87 14 343,66

Cl mg/l 75,10 242,95 193,21 14 79,49

Na2O mg/l 17,20 362,69 179,09 14 160,22

Heavy metals

Total Cadmium -Cd µg/l <1 2

Total Chromium - Cr µg/l <100 2

Total Copper - Cu µg/l <100 2

Total Mercury - Hg µg/l <2 2

Total Nickel - Ni µg/l <100 2

Total Lead - Pb µg/l <100 2

Total Zinc - Zn µg/l 4100 2

Cr+Cu+Ni+Zn µg/l <4400 2


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

289

Chemical industry

The chemical sludge composition varies according to the type of production. The Table E54below shows average compositions.

Table E54 Average composition of chemical industry sludges (SEDE 2000)

ELEMENTS Min Max Mean NberStandarddeviation

Dry solids (%) 3,9 70,8 35,22 81 22,05

C/N Ratio 3,7 24,43 11,83 81 8,65

water pH 6,2 13,3 10,35 81 2,61


Organic matter 3,84 95,17 35,23 81 28,70

Organic carbon 29,90 52,80 41,35 6 16,19

CaO 0,28 54,80 25,98 81 14,69

MgO 0,00 2,32 0,78 81 0,81

NTK 0,15 14,23 3,97 81 4,44

NH4 0,00 2,54 1,27 81 1,80

NO3 0,26 3,05 1,05 81 1,34

P2O5 0,13 22,30 6,89 81 8,56

K2O 0,03 0,54 0,31 81 0,20

SO3 2,60 48,20 25,40 81 32,24

Na2O 1,10 7,67 4,39 81 4,65

Cl 0,09 0,09 0,09 2

Oligo elements (ppm = mg/kg DS)

Boron - B 82,5 82,5 82,5 7

Cobalt - Co 1,05 1,05 1,05 7

Iron - Fe 2570 2570 2570 7

Manganese - Mn 65,7 65,7 65,7 7

Molybdenum - Mo 2,1 2,1 2,1 7


Arsenic - As 0,36 0,36 0,36 48

Cadmium - Cd 0,10 2,00 0,71 79 0,59

Chromium -Cr 0,10 84,10 21,81 79 24,97

Copper - Cu 2,30 144,70 37,59 79 42,43


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

290

ELEMENTS Min Max Mean NberStandarddeviation

Mercury - Hg 0,05 8,20 1,64 79 2,63

Nickel - Ni 6,70 193,00 38,02 79 53,63

Lead - Pb 0,50 127,20 24,58 79 38,54

Zinc - Zn 4,70 1724,20 483,12 79 591,25

Selenium - Se 0,01 7,00 2,57 79 3,29

Cr+Cu+Ni+Zn 18,20 1862,70 580,27 79 650,68


Fluoranthene 0,040 0,145 0,081 7

Benzo (b) fluoranthene 0,015 0,405 0,135 7

Benzo (a) pyrene 0,010 0,495 0,176 7

Sum of 7 PCB 0,010 0,500 0,189 7


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

291

Drinking Water Industry

Table E55 details the types of sludge produced by drinking water processes and their maincharacteristics.

Table E55 Main types of drinking water sludges

Sludge type Origin Composition

Clarification sludge Surface waters + drillingwaters (mixed sludges)

(Fe + Al) Hydroxides > 60 %MO > 20 %

Decarbonatation sludge Hard drilling waters + hardsurface water (mixedsludges)

CaCO3 > 85 %(Fe + Al) Hydroxides < 5 %MO < 10 %

Iron removal sludge Drilling waters CaCO3 > 20 à 40 %(Fe + Al) Hydroxides < 40 %(Fe + Al) Hydroxides < 5 à 10 %

The suspended material contained in the sludge consists of material present in the waterbefore treatment: plankton, flocculated mineral and organic material and metal hydroxides(Fe, Mg), and material added during treatment: metal hydroxides from the coagulatingmedium, calcium carbonate, etc. Table E38 below shows the main characteristics ofhydroxide sludge, based on the water’s origin.

Table E56 Main composition of hydroxide sludge

Parameters Unit Clear water(clean lakeor reservoir

water)

Normalriver

Clay-ladenriver

(marl/calcareous clays)

River inspate orestuarywater

Organicwater

(algae,plankton)

Suspended Solids mg/l 1 to 10 30 to 70 30 to 70 60 to 200

Organic material % DM 20 to 30 15 to 20 15 > 30

Hydroxides % DM 40 to 60 20 to 30 10 to 20 > 65

CaCO3 % 10

Clay % DM 25 to 40

COD / DM % DM 0.25 to 0.80 0.20 to 0.40

Thickening(+ polymer)

g/l 15 20 60 100 10

Max. drynesspermissible

% 18


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

292

An average composition of these sedimentation residues is exposed Table E57 (Source:SEDE Data base – 1997- 2000).

Hydroxide sludge contains low levels of organic and fertilisation material:

C: 2 to 3%N: 0.1 to 2%P: 0.2 to 2%

Although the work has already been done, it can be seen that, depending on their origin,drinking water by-products constitute a very low contamination risk. They effectively containno heavy metals or other toxic substances. The only potential risk of pollution arises from ironor aluminium, derived from the reagents used during flocculation.

The risk of biological contamination can effectively be considered to be zero because of theorigin of the untreated water and the pre-chlorination or pre-ozonisation treatment applied andbecause the sludge is treated with lime.

Table E57 Average composition of sedimentation residues (SEDE 2000)


Dry matter % RP 28.5 63.8 50.02 17 14.14

Water pH 10.2 12.2 11.02 16 0.53

C/N Ratio 6.3 105.9 20.63 16 23.21

Organic matter % DM 5.81 51.10 13.67 16 10.5

organique C % DM 3.75 25.59 7.67 9 6.78

TKN % DM 0.19 1.1 0.4 16 0.23

NH4 % DM 0 0.18 0.02 16 0.05

P205 % DM 0.48 1.32 0.76 17 0.26

K20 % DM 0.12 0.99 0.3 16 0.27

MgO % DM 0.39 0.77 0.53 16 0.12

SO3 % DM 0.37 3.54 0.72 16 0.77

CaO % DM 16.06 29.19 23.1 17 3.75

Cadmium In mg/kg DM 0.4 0.9 0.56 12 0.14

Chromium In mg/kg DM 14.5 53.3 28.23 12 9.04

Copper In mg/kg DM 13.4 44 26.02 12 10.59

Mercury In mg/kg DM 0.1 0.2 0.17 12 0.05

nickel In mg/kg DM 16.1 34.2 25.14 12 5.7

Lead In mg/kg DM 16.3 35.7 28.76 12 6.96

Zinc In mg/kg DM 82 196.6 134.05 12 41.72


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

293


Cr+Cu+Ni+Zn In mg/kg DM 0 302.9 150.66 17 110.75

Bore In mg/kg DM 12.4 32.1 22.16 9 6.62

Cobalt In mg/kg DM 4.4 6.2 5.26 7 0.73

Iron In mg/kg DM 9870 76100 24377 10 23741.25

Manganese In mg/kg DM 271 543 380.63 8 86

Molybdene In mg/kg DM 0.1 1.9 0.84 7 0.64

Arsenic In mg/kg DM 5 5 5 1

Aluminium In mg/kg DM 1200 62600 11428.57 7 22757.62


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

294

Dredging and watercourse clearing sector

Sedimentary silt comprises 40 to 50% dry material, is often toxic and contains heavy metalssuch as zinc or lead. No qualitative analyses have been able to be collected at present.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

295

REFERENCES

Farm waste: Forward analysis of the French market for compost resulting fromISAB organic waste. Marie Gabrielle LEROY, 1994.

Organic material used in agriculture in Languedoc – Roussillon: atechnical guide, 1997

DEXEL, institut de l’élevage (Animal Farming Institute), 1996

CLIP files, 1999

Paper industry: Recycling of paper industry sludge and waste products, CTP, 1995

The paper industry : what methods of disposal for by-products andwaste? – Ademe, 1993

The COPACEL publication, 1998

Order of 6th January 1994 (the paper industry edict)

Order of 3rd April 2000

Sugar processing: Cultivar No. 275 – May 1990.

Filière betterave, sucrerie et distillerie: sous-produtis et déchets, quelsgisements? Ademe 1993.

Textile and leatherindustry:

The tanning and tawing industry: analysis of the disposal of waste andby-products, Ademe 1993

The textile industry: environment and energy, ITF / Ademe - 1997

Publication FET - 1999

Dairy industry: Agricultural recycling of dairy industry sludge, ANRED 1987

The dairy industry: disposal methods available for by-products andwaste , ADEME 1993

Meat industry: The meat industry: disposal methods available for by-products andwaste – Ademe – 1993

Energy, water and waste in abattoirs slaughtering animals for humanconsumption - Ademe – 1997

Dredgings: Dredging and the future for silt – a legislative approach – Artois –Picardy Water Board

Recycling dredged silt – Chambre d'Agriculture du Nord

Waterworkssludge:

Treating and recycling OTV sludge, 1997

Report on drinking water residues – Geneviève LEBOUCHER, 1999


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

296

CONTACTS

Farm waste: APCA : JN Terrible

Ademe : Jacques Wiart

Institut de l’élevage (Animal Farming Institute): Paris,Rennes

SCEES

CORPEN

Paper industry: Mr BRULE - COPACEL

Mr GUILLET – Paper Technology Centre

Mr Didier LENEL - PROVAL

CEPI

Sugar processing: SNFS: Mr LESCURE

Dairy industry: CTCPA : Mr JOLY

Meat industry: SNIV : Mr LAPORTE

CEBV : Mr LUSSERT – Mr DOUZAIN

Textile and leather industry: UNIT: Mr BONNAILLIE

Textile processing: Mr GIBIER

UIT Nord: Mr MERCIER

Central Wool Board: Mr DUPOTET

Ademe Paris : Mrs Sylvie RIOU

Waterworks sludge: SPDE: Mr MEUNIER

Générale des eaux: Bruno TISSERAND

Daniel CLERET

Dominique OLIVIER

Dredgings Artois – Picardy Water Board

IFTS (Agen)

European Commission - Directorate-General for Environment

WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

297

APPENDIX F GERMANY

SUMMARY

In principle, all recycling/re-use of waste is governed by the recently introduced waste law(Waste Avoidance, Recycling and Disposal Act). The emphasis of this law is on a hierarchy of(1) waste avoidance, (2) waste recycling, and (3) disposal of residual waste that cannot beprevented or recycled.

Under this law, the Bio-Waste Ordinance 1998 has been introduced to regulate the applicationof biological (organic) waste on agricultural, horticultural and forestry soils. A similarOrdinance governing the use of mineral waste/by-product application on land has been calledfor, and may be prepared in future.

Several other laws and regulations are also relevant, e.g. the Fertiliser Law and FertiliserOrdinance, and the Soil Protection Law and Soil Protection Ordinance. Consequently, there isa multitude of different quality standards applicable to soils and materials applied to soils.

The recent introduction of the Waste Avoidance and Recycling Act has lead to increasedoffers of organic and mineral waste and by-products from industry to farmers for use asfertilisers and soil improvers on agricultural land. In addition, considerable quantities of farmwaste (animal manure and slurry) are applied to agricultural land as fertilisers. The increase isexpected mainly in the form of compost, i.e. an increase from 1.3 million tonnes (as drysubstance) in 1995 to 40 million tonnes by 2005 has been predicted (Döhler, 1998). Thus,apart from solid manure, compost is expected to become the most important residue used inagriculture.

A review of mineral wastes/by-products (there is much debate about the definition of theseterms) and, whilst there are many gaps, a considerable body of information is available onquantities and quality of such wastes. With the exception of farm wastes, few quantitative datawere found for organic wastes, but qualitative data have been collated on a database, whichwas obtained.

An extensive research programme has been funded between 1990 and 1997 by the FederalAuthorities to investigate potential problems associated with farm waste and to offer solutions.Following completion of the various projects, it was concluded that, if current state-of-the-artwere to be implemented widely, the major environmental impacts could be reducedsignificantly. In this respect, it was recommended that the priority should focus on increasednumbers and better advisory bodies to help farmers put into practice the current knowledge.

In addition, an expert system was developed to assist farmers and advisory bodies inenvironmentally acceptable and sustainable utilisation of liquid farm manure. A database oforganic and mineral waste has also been produced, with the aim of providing a decision aidfor producers and users of waste materials, as well as those involved in waste processing anddistribution, and advisory bodies engaged in assisting farmers. This waste database providesa classification system of waste materials for re-use on land, qualitative data for a largenumber of waste types, and details about the potential application of wastes on land, includinginformation about relevant legislation, physical properties and appropriate methods ofapplication.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

298


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

299

F1 LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

The new Waste Law (Waste Avoidance, Recycling and Disposal Law – Kreislaufwirtschafts-und Abfallgesetz (KrW-/AbfG) 1994, last amended 1998) which took effect in October 1996,forms the basis of all recycling/re-use and disposal of waste. The emphasis of this law is on ahierarchy of (1) waste avoidance, (2) waste recycling, and (3) disposal of residual waste thatcannot be prevented or recycled.

Under this law, the Bio-Waste Ordinance (Bioabfallverordnung – BioAbfV, 1998) has beenintroduced to regulate the application of biological waste on agricultural, horticultural andforestry soils. A similar Ordinance governing the use of mineral waste/by-product applicationon land has been called for, and may be prepared in future (Gonser et al., 1999).

Other relevant laws and regulations, concerning the application of waste on land, are asfollows:

• The Fertiliser Law (Düngemittelgesetz - DMG 1977, as amended 1989 and 1994) and theFertiliser Ordinance (Düngemittelverordnung – DüMV - 1991); these regulate the quality offertilisers and their application (use of best practice, soil quality, nutrient balances etc.);

• The Soil Protection Law (Bundes-Bodenschutzgesetz – BBoSchG - 1998) and the SoilProtection Ordinance 1999 (Bundes-Bodenschutz- und Altlastenverordnung) whichregulate the protection of soil quality, soil uses and clean-up of contaminated soils.

Figure F1 shows an example of the application of the Waste Law to the use of waste materialor by-products on agricultural land, with specific reference to the Fertiliser Ordinance (Gonseret al., 1999).

The Bio-Waste Ordinance regulates the application of biological waste on agricultural,horticultural and forestry soils. Before any biological waste material or by-product can beapplied to soils, they must be treated to ensure the hygienic, including phyto-hygienic, qualityof the product. Detailed instructions, concerning the treatment requirements and appropriatetests to be carried out, are prescribed in Annex 2 of the Ordinance. Wastes that are, inprinciple, suitable for application on land are specified in Annex 1 of the Ordinance. This alsoprescribes specific conditions, such as the type of permitted use of a given waste, or therelevance of other legislation, e.g. the Animal Carcass Disposal Law, or the Animal DiseasesLaw. A translation of Annex 1 of the Bio-Waste Ordinance is provided in Table F7 of thisreport. Figure F2 below summarises the assessment of biological waste for application onland, according to the Bio-Waste Ordinance.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

300

Figure F1 Scheme of waste and fertiliser regulation for agricultural use of waste onland (Gonser et al., 1999)

Waste according to Waste Law

Waste Avoidance, Recycling and Disposal Law

including Art. 1: Recycling and Waste Law (KrW-/AbfG)

including Art. 4: Amendment of the Fertilser Law /DüMG

Re-Use Disposal

Otherapplications

Agriculturalapplication

Fertiliser Soil substituteSoilconditioner

Designation as fertiliser,incl. type, soil conditioner

or soil substitute

Specific applicationon non-agricultural

land Specific applicationon agricultural land

FertiliserOrdinance

Disposal on landsurfaces

Land surfaces

Treatment andacceptance as

fertiliser


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

301

Figure F2 Assessment of biological (organic) waste for application on land (Eurich-Menden, 1999 – figure reproduced in KTBL, 2000)

yes

Relevant nutrientcontent

yes

Application as fertiliser

no

no

Exemption according toArt. 6,2 of the BioAbfV

no

Disposal or recyclingaccording to Art. 27 ofthe Waste Avoidance,Recycling & Disposal

Law

Application assoil improver,

culturesubstrate orsoil additive

yes

Application as- Soil improver- Culture substrate- Soil additive

Contaminant testingok

no

yes

Recommendations of good practice (Fertiliser Ordinance, Soil Protection Law) and forspecial applications (agriculture, horticulture, cultivation) should be adhered to.

Waste as defined byWaste Ordinance

(BioAbfV)

no

Material may beadded to fertiliser

type listnoMaterial included in

fertiliser type list

yes

no

Criteria:• N < 0.5 % DS• P2O5 < 0.3 % DS• K2O < 0.5 % DS

• Load restriction according to Fertiliser Ordinance


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

302

The above laws and regulations are issued by the Federal authorities but each relevantauthority of the Länder (Federal States) may issue more detailed regulations and is alsoresponsible for the implementation and enforcement of Federal laws and regulations.

However, there are technical working groups, with representatives from the relevant authorityof each Land (Federal State), which elaborate technical recommendations to be applied atFederal level, for example the Working Group for Waste (Länderarbeitsgemeinschaft Abfall -LAGA) and the Working Group for Soil Protection (Länderarbeitsgemeinschaft Bodenschutz -LABO). These groups have published soil standards, for example LAGA has developedclassification values for recycling of mineral waste, and LABO has developed soil referencevalues for recycling compost on arable land (Bannick et al., 1998).

The classification soil values developed by LAGA for the recycling of mineral waste are shownin Table F1. These values have been incorporated into Technical Regulations concerning therequirements for recycling of mineral waste. Material that meets the Z0 values can be recycledin any way, since the Z0 values correspond to the upper limits of the geogenic variation ofnatural soils. Thus, it may be assumed that ‘relevant assets’ are not adversely affected, ifthese values are not exceeded. Material which corresponds to the Z1 values can be used forany land reclamation and landscaping purposes. Other values (Z2-values for limited recyclingwith technical safety measures) have been developed specifically in relation to the protectionof groundwater.

The soil reference values for recycling compost on land, as developed by LABO, are shown inTable F2. Values are provided for three different soil types: sand, loam and clay. On the basisof estimates from soil maps, sandy soils make up about 33% of soils in Germany; loamy soiland loess soils, which have similar hydrological behaviour, account for about 28% of all soils,and clay soils about 14%. Thus, about 75% of all soils are covered by the reference valuesdeveloped by LABO. With reference to the background values, and following the 90 percentilevalues of soils in rural areas and under agricultural use, the reference values in Table F2 arerecommended by LABO as the upper limit for recycling of organic materials on agriculturalland. These, however, have been superseded by the soil values of the Bio-Waste Ordinance,where most values are somewhat less strict and two have been omitted (arsenic andthallium).

Bannick et al. (1998) discussed the multitude of different soil values applied in differentsituations (those recommended by LAGA and LABO, those of the Wastewater TreatmentSludge Ordinance – see Table F3, and those used in environmental risk assessment (UVPG1990) – see Table F4), and called for clarification and a more unified approach. This seems tohave been addressed to some extent through the Bio-Waste Ordinance, although differentvalues still apply in different Ordinances (Bio-Waste Ordinance, Wastewater TreatmentSludge Ordinance) and technical regulations (LAGA values for mineral waste).

The soil values of the Sewage Sludge Ordinance (Table F3) were defined to prevent theapplication of sewage sludge to land contributing to deterioration of soils in those locationsalready polluted by harmful substances (e.g. industrial regions). However, today it isconsidered that these values should be revised in the light of new data on soils and on soil-plant transfer of heavy metals, and especially the recently established soil background data,as well as correlations between soil and plant heavy metal content (Bannick et al., 1998) (seevalues recommended by LABO, Table F2).


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

303

Table F1 Classification soil values Z0 – Z1.2 for recycling mineral waste (LAGA)(Bannick et al., 1998)

Z-Values (solids) Z-Values (eluate)Parameter Unit

Z0 Z1.1 Z1.2

Unit

Z0 Z1.1 Z1.2

pH-value 5.5 - 8 5.5 - 8 5 - 9 6.5 - 9 6.5 - 9 6 - 12

Conductivity µScm-1

500 500 1000

Chloride mg l-1 10 10 20

Sulphate mg l-1 50 50 100

Phenol index µg l-1 <10 10 50

EOX mg kg-1 1 3 10

Hydro-carbons mg kg-1 100 300 500

BTEX mg kg-1 < 1 1 3

VOX mg kg-1 < 1 1 3

PAH (EPA) mg kg-1 1 5 15

PCB mg kg-1 0.02 0.1 0.5

Arsenic mg kg-1 20 30 50 µg l-1 10 10 40

Lead mg kg-1 100 200 300 µg l-1 20 40 100

Cadmium mg kg-1 0.6 1 3 µg l-1 2 2 5

Chromium(total)

mg kg-1 50 100 200 µg l-1 15 30 75

Copper mg kg-1 40 100 200 µg l-1 50 50 150

Nickel mg kg-1 40 100 200 µg l-1 40 50 150

Mercury mg kg-1 0.3 1 3 µg l-1 0.2 0.2 1

Thallium mg kg-1 0.5 1 3 µg l-1 < 1 1 3

Zinc mg kg-1 120 300 500 µg l-1 100 100 300

Cyanide mg kg-1 1 10 30 µg l-1 < 1 10 50Notes:

EOX = extractable organo-halogen compoundsBTEX = extractable halogen compoundsVOX = volatile organo-halogen compoundsPAH = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons as defined by the US EPAPCB = polychlorinated by-phenyls as defined in the German standard DIN 51527

The soil values for environmental impact assessment (Table F4) are used primarily to assesswhether, for example, a new facility will change the physical, chemical or biologicalparameters of the soil. Two categories are provided. Category I is based on the SewageSludge Ordinance, with some additional parameters and refers to pollutant contents of typical


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

304

agricultural soils with a medium clay content (12-18%), a use-specific humus content of 2%and a pH range of pH 5.5-7. Category II comprises a set of lower values for which it isassumed that natural soil functions for any usage are not adversely affected.

The relevant limit values and guide values are summarised in Table F5. The information hasbeen taken mainly from Gonser et al. 1999, but the values of the draft Bio-Waste Ordinance1997 have been updated to incorporate those of the final version (Bio-AbfV 1998). A summaryof the relevant limit values for permitted fertilisers, as appropriate to different wastes or by-products, are presented in Table F6 (Gonser et al., 1999).

Table F2 Soil reference values for recycling compost on arable land (LABO)(Bannick et al., 1998, no units given - assuming mg kg-1 dry substance)

Soil typeParameter

Sand Loam Clay

Arsenic 3 10 10

Cadmium 0.3 0.3 1.0

Chromium 20 50 100

Copper 3 30 60

Mercury 0.03 0.06 0.14

Nickel 3 50 75

Lead 15 50 75

Thallium 0.2 0.4 0.7

Zinc 15 90 120

Table F3 Soil values of the Sewage Sludge Ordinance (1982/1992)

Parameter Soil value - mg kg-1 dry substance

Lead 100

Cadmium 1.5 (1) *

Chromium 100

Copper 60

Nickel 50

Mercury 1

Zinc 200 (150) *

Note: * (lower values) for sandy soils due to their particular vulnerability


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

305

Table F4 Soil values used in environmental impact assessment

Parameter Soil value – Category I

mg kg-1 dry substance

Soil value – Category II

mg kg-1 dry substance

Arsenic 40 24

Lead 100 60

Cadmium 1.5 0.9

Chromium 100 60

Copper 60 36

Nickel 50 30

Mercury 1 0.6

Zinc 200 120

Thallium 1 0.6

Benzo-(a)-pyrene 1 0.3

PAH 10 3

Note: PAH = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons as defined by the US EPA

Table F5 Summary of relevant limit values and guide values in relation to theanalysis of solids (from Gonser et al., 1999, but updated to incorporatevalues of the Bio-Waste Ordinance – BioAbfV - 1998)

Mineral waste -

TechnicalRegulations

Para-meter

Biologicalwaste,compost, etc.

(BioAbfV)

Sewage sludge

(Sewage SludgeOrdinance -AbfKlärV)

Soils (background levels)

Federal Soil ProtectionLaw - BBoSchG(Bachmann et al. 1997);and * BioAbfV LAGA

1995LAGA1997

‘Soilim-prover’(EU1998)

I

Art.6(1) s. 1,2

II

Art.6(1) s.3

I II

(lightsoil)

I

Soiltype:Clay

II

Soiltype:Clay/loam

III

Soiltype:Sand

Z1.1

Soil

Z.1.1

Ash -coarse,furnace,grate

mg kg-

1 DSmg kg-1 DS

mg kg-1

DSmg kg-1

DSmg kg-1

DSmg kg-1

DSmg kg-1

DSmg kg-1

DSmg kg-1

DSmg kg-1

DS

As - - - - 20 15 10 30 30 10 1)

Pb 150 100 900 900 100 * 70 * 40 * 200 200 100

Cd 1.5 1 10 5 1.5 * 1 * 0.4 * 1 1 1

Cr 100 70(100)2)

900 900 100 * 60 * 30 * 100 100 100

Cu 100 70(75)2)

800 800 60 * 40 * 20 * 100 100 100

Ni 50 35 200 200 70 * 50 * 15 * 100 100 50


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

306

Mineral waste -

TechnicalRegulations

Para-meter

Biologicalwaste,compost, etc.

(BioAbfV)

Sewage sludge

(Sewage SludgeOrdinance -AbfKlärV)

Soils (background levels)

Federal Soil ProtectionLaw - BBoSchG(Bachmann et al. 1997);and * BioAbfV LAGA

1995LAGA1997

‘Soilim-prover’(EU1998)

I

Art.6(1) s. 1,2

II

Art.6(1) s.3

I II

(lightsoil)

I

Soiltype:Clay

II

Soiltype:Clay/loam

III

Soiltype:Sand

Z1.1

Soil

Z.1.1

Ash -coarse,furnace,grate

mg kg-

1 DSmg kg-1 DS

mg kg-1

DSmg kg-1

DSmg kg-1

DSmg kg-1

DSmg kg-1

DSmg kg-1

DSmg kg-1

DSmg kg-1

DS

(50) 2)

Hg 1 0.7 (1)2)

8 8 1 * 0.5 * 0.1 * 1 1 1

Tl - - - - - - - 1 - -

Zn 400 300 2500 2000 200 * 150 * 60 * 300 300 300

CN-

(total)- - - - - - - 10 - -

PCB

28, 52,101,138,153, 180

- - 0.2 percon-

gener

- - - - 0.1

(sumDIN

51527)

- -

PCDD/PCDF

- - 100

(as ngTCDD-I-TE)

- - - - - - -

AOX - - 500 - - - - - - -

Σ PAH - - - - - - - 5 - -

Benzo-(a)-pyrene

- - - - - - - 0.5 - -

EOX - - - - - - - 3 - -

Hydro-carbons

- - - - - - - 300 - -

Notes:1) Limit applies only to products containing materials from industrial production processes or municipal waste2) Value (in brackets) of the draft Bio-Waste Ordinance – E-BioAbfV - (1997)

* also soil value of the Bio-Waste Ordinance - BioAbfV - 1998

DS = dry substance


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

307

Table F6 Summary of relevant limit values for permitted fertiliser types accordingto Annex 1 of the Fertiliser Ordinance (DüMV) (Gonser et al. 1999)

Fertilisertype

Minimumcontent% w/w 1)

Additionalrequirements

Particle size Production Other 1)

‘Thomas’phosphate

10% P2O5 Phosphatecontent defined asP2O5 soluble in2% citric acidsolution

96% <0.63 mm

75% <0.16 mm

Calcium silicaphosphate; from

processing ofphosphate containingslag from steelproduction

Residualpotash

20% K2O Potassium contentdefined as watersoluble K2O

Potassium containingresidues fromindustrial processes;

Potassium salts

Thallium (Tl):max. 10 mg kg-

1

Furnacelime

42% CaO Lime contentdefined as CaO

a) 97% <1.0 mm

80% <0.315 mm

b) 97% <3.15 mm

Ca and Mg silicates

from blast furnaceslag:

a) grinding

b) sifting

Converterlime

40% CaO Lime contentdefined as CaO

a) 97% <1.0 mm

80% <0.315 mm

b) 97% <3.15 mm

40% <0.315 mm

c) 97% <2.0 mm

50% <0.315 mm

Silicates and oxidesof Ca and Mg, Fe andMn compounds; from

a) grinding ofconverter slag,

b) sifting of converterslag,

c) sifting ofdisintegrated furnaceslag from non-alloyedsteel treatment

Residuallime - 1

30% CaO Lime contentdefined as >15%CaO reactivity(dilute HCl)

97% <4.0 mm

for Ca/Mgcarbonates:

97% <3.0 mm

70% <1.0 mm

Ca/Mg oxide,hydroxide, carbonate;from

industrial production,limestone/dolomiteprocessing,

water treatment forpublic supply andindustrial use

Pb 200 mg kg-

1

Cd 6 mg kg-

1

Ni 100 mg kg-1

Hg 4 mg kg-1

Tl 2 mg kg-1

B 0.05%

(water soluble)

Residuallime - 2

40% CaO BAST defined as>15% CaOreactivity

(in dilute HCl)

97% <3.0 mm

70% <1.0 mm

Oxide, sulfate,carbonate;

from brown coalbriquetting ash

Pb 200 mg kg-

1

Cd 6 mg kg-

1

Ni 100 mg kg-1

Hg 4 mg kg-1

Tl 2 mg kg-1


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

308

Fertilisertype




B 0.05%

(water soluble)

Carbonationlime

45%CaCO3

Lime contentdefined as CaCO3

97% <4.0 mm CaCO3 and otherbasic Ca/Mgcompounds, andorganic compounds;

from sugar beet juiceprecipitate obtainedby addition of limeand CO2

Calciumsulfate

14% S

18% Ca

Sulfur contentdefined as S;

Ca contentdefined as Ca

99% <10 mm

80% <2 mm

Natural and industrialorigin

Magnesium– rock meal

20% MgO Magnesium oxide 97% <0.2 mm

65% <0.032 mm

Mg-silicates;

from mechanicalprocessing of Mgcontaining rocks

Concen-tratedmagnesiumfertiliser

70% MgO Total magnesiumoxide

97% <4 mm Magnesium oxide

Magnesiumfertilisersuspension

15% MgO Total magnesiumoxide

Magnesium oxide,Magnesium hyroxide,

Magnesium salts

Sulfur-magnesiumfertiliser

6% S

6% MgO

Sulfur contentdefined as S;

Mg contentdefined as totalmagnesium oxide

97% <4 mm Sulfate, hydroxide,carbonate, or oxide ofCa or Mg from naturalor industrial sources

Tracenutrient -mixedfertiliser

Only inmineralform:

0.2% B

0.02% Co

0.5% Cu

2% Fe

0.5% Mn

0.02% Mo

or

0.5% Zn

Trace nutrientsdefined as totalcontent or watersoluble content

Mixing of watersoluble salts,

Dissolving of salts inwater

The fertilisermust contain atleast two of thespecified tracenutrients

Traceelementnutrient -mixedfertiliser

0.2% B

1% Fe

0.5% Cu

1% Mn

Trace nutrientsdefined as totalcontent

98% <1.0 mm

70% <1.6 mm

for granules:

Boron and metalcontainingsubstances, also inchelated form, inwater soluble and

The fertilisermust contain atleast two of thespecified tracenutrients;


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

309

Fertilisertype




0.01% Mo

or

0.5% Zn

98% <2.8 mm

70% <1.6 mm

water insoluble form The type oforiginalmaterial mustbe declared;

Pb 0.1% 1)

Iron salt 12% Fe Iron defined aswater soluble Fe

Iron-(II)-salt The anion mustbe declared

Residualmanganesefertiliser

10% Mn Mn defined astotal content

98% <2.8 mm

60% <1.6 mm

Manganese oxideand other Mncontainingsubstances

The type oforiginalmaterial mustbe declared

Note: 1) with respect to original substance


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

310

Table F7 List of bio-waste and mineral additives considered suitable, in principle,for application on land - Annex 1 of the Bio-Waste Ordinance (BioAbfV1998) 1)

Waste designationaccording to EAKOrdinance

(key/EU WasteCatalogue number)

Usable waste types 2) Supplementary information

(waste origin)

1. Waste with high organic component

Plant tissue waste

(02 01 03)

Husks, chaff ;

Husk and cereal dust;

Animal fodder.

- May be applied to permanent grassland,also in mixtures.

Animal faeces, urine andmanure (incl. spoiledstraw), effluent, collectedseparately and treatedoff-site

(02 01 06)

Poultry manure;

Pig and cattle slurry;

Solid manure;

Spoiled straw.

- Subject to Bio-Waste Ordinance only if notsubject to Fertiliser Law;

- Infectious manure excluded;


Waste from forestryexploitation

(02 01 07)

Bark;

Wood, wood waste.

- Natural bark exempt from treatment(composting) and analysis;

- Natural bark or wood may be added, aftershredding, to compost for use on grassland.

Animal tissue waste

(02 02 02)

Bristle and horn waste Including hair from Äscher process;

- May be used only if not in contravention ofthe Animal Carcass Disposal Law or theAnimal Diseases Law3).

Materials unsuitable forconsumption orprocessing

(02 02 03)

Fat residues (Meat and fish processing)

- May be used only if not in contravention ofthe Animal Carcass Disposal Law or theAnimal Diseases Law3);

- For use only in anaerobic treatment plants;

- May be applied to permanent grassland,also in mixtures, only after pasteurisation(70°C, >1 hour).

Sludges from on-siteeffluent treatment

(02 02 04)

Contents of fat separatorsand skimmers

(Meat and fish processing)

Examples of origins:

Abattoirs and meat processing; not mixedwith other effluents;



WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

311




(waste origin)

- For use only in anaerobic treatment plants;


Waste not otherwisespecified

(02 02 99)

Sludges from gelatineproduction;

Gelatine pressing waste;

Feathers;

Stomach and gut contents.


- Sludges for use only if not mixed witheffluent or sludges from other sources.

Sludges from washing,cleaning, peeling,centrifuging andseparation

(02 03 01)

Other sludgy food wastes;

Starch sludges.

(Food processing)

- Application only if not mixed with effluent orsludges from other sources;



(02 03 04)

‘Out of date’ foods andluxury foods;

Canning waste;

Tabacco dust, debris,veins, sludge;

Faulty cigarette batches;

Coffee, tea and cocoaproduction residues;

Oil seed residues.

(Food processing)



(02 03 99)

Sludges from edible fat oroil production;

Blanching soil (degreased);

Flavouring agent residues;

Molasses residues;

Residues from potato,maize, or rice starchproduction.

(Food processing)

- Sludges from edible fat or oil production,

molasses residues, and residues frompotato, maize, or rice starch production maybe applied to permanent grassland, also inmixtures;

- Sludges from edible fat or oil productiononly for use in anaerobic treatment plants.


(02 05 01)

‘Out of date’ foods (Milk processing)




WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

312




(waste origin)


(02 05 99)

Whey (Milk processing)




(02 06 01)

‘Out of date’ foods;

Dough waste.

(Bakery and confectionery)


Wastes from washing,cleaning and mechanicalreduction of raw material

(02 07 01)

Used filters and absorptionmaterials (silica gel),activated soil, activatedcarbon

(Alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverageproduction)

Silica gels not be applied in the dried state;

Must be dug in immediately after application.

Wastes from spiritsdistillation

(02 07 02)

Fruit, cereal and potatoswills;

Distillery sludge

(Alcohol distillery)



(02 07 04)

(Beverage production)

e.g. ‘out of date’ fruit juice


Sludges from on-siteeffluent treatment

(02 03 05, 02 04 03,

02 05 02, 02 06 03,

02 07 05)

(Food and luxury foods/drinks production)

- May be used only if no mixing witheffluents or sludges from other than thespecified sources;




(02 07 99)

Malt draff; malt grain, maltdust;

Hop draff;

Brewery washings andsludge;

Grape skins and grapewashings;

Yeast and yeast residues.

(Alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverageproduction)

- Except for grape skins, may be applied topermanent grassland, also in mixtures.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

313




(waste origin)

Waste bark and cork

(03 01 01, 03 03 01)

Bark (Wood working and processing)

- Separately collected bark, except barkfrom trees and shrubs from road sides, areexempt from treatment and analysis (Art. 3and 4);

- Bark from trees and shrubs from roadsides may only be applied if they complywith the metal limits prescribed in the Bio-Waste Ordinance;

- Natural, untreated materials may beapplied to permanent grassland, also inmixtures.

Saw dust

(03 01 02)

Saw dust and woodshavings

(Wood working and processing, wood fibreand furniture manufacture)

- Saw dust and wood shavings fromuntreated wood may be added tocomposting process of material forapplication on permanent grassland.

Shavings, cuttings, spoilttimber/particleboard/veneer

(03 01 03)

Saw dust and woodshavings;

Wood wool

(Wood working and processing, wood fibreand furniture manufacture)

- Saw dust and wood shavings fromuntreated wood only.

Wastes fromunprocessed textile fibreand other natural fibroussubstances mainly ofvegetable origin

(04 02 01)

Cellulose fibre waste;

Plant fibre waste

(Textile industry)

Wastes fromunprocessed textile fibremainly of animal origin

(04 02 02)

Wool waste - Wool dust and short fibres for use only ifnot in contravention of the Animal CarcassDisposal Law or the Animal Diseases Law3).


(07 05 99)

Medicinal plant residues;

Fungal mycelli;

Funghi substrate residues

- Fungal mycelli from medicine productiononly to be used after individual assessment,and only if there are no medicinal residues.

Solid wastes from primaryfiltration and screening

(19 09 01)

Filtration, cutting and rakingmaterials;

Protein residues

(Drinking water treatment, maintenance ofwater bodies)

Only raking material suitable for use.

Paper and cardboard

(20 01 01)

Waste paper - Addition in small amounts only (ca.10%) toseparately collected bio-wastes or for


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

314




(waste origin)

composting;

- Addition of glossy paper and used wallpaper to separately collected bio-wastes orcomposting is not permitted.

Organic compostablekitchen waste (includingfrying oil and kitchenwaste from canteens andrestaurants) – separatelycollected fractions

(20 01 08)

Kitchen and canteen waste Use of waste from canteens and largekitchens only if not in contravention of theAnimal Carcass Disposal Law or the AnimalDiseases Law3);


Compostable waste

(20 02 01)

Waste from gardens, parksand landscapemaintenance;

Woodland clearance waste;

Plant components ofnursery waste

- Separately collected material, exceptgreenery and shrub cuttings from road sidesor industrial sites, are exempt fromtreatment and analysis (Art. 3 and 4);

- Greenery and shrub cuttings from roadsides or industrial sites, as well as nurseryplant waste, may only be applied if theycomply with the metal limits prescribed inthe Bio-Waste Ordinance;

- Materials may be applied to permanentgrassland, also in mixtures.

Mixed municipal waste

(20 03 01)

Domestic waste (separatelycollected bio-waste)

(Municipal waste)

- In particular, separately collected bio-wastefrom domestic premises and smallbusinesses.

Market waste

(20 03 02)

Market waste - Only separately collected biodegradablewaste;


Separately collected materials may beapplied to permanent grassland, also inmixtures.

- Mud sludges and medicinalmud/clay/soils


- Biodegradable productsfrom renewable resources,as well as wastes fromworking and processingsuch products

Biodegradability must be demonstrated,based on technical Norm.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

315




(waste origin)

- Egg shells - May be used only if not in contravention ofthe Animal Carcass Disposal Law or theAnimal Diseases Law3);

2. Mineral additives (if waste, EAKV/EU Waste catalogue designation)

Off specification calciumcarbonate

(02 04 02)

Carbonate sludge (Sugarbeet processing)


Sludges fromdecarbonation

(19 09 03)

Water softening sludge (Water treatment)


- - Calcium carbonate

- Bentonite

- Rock meal, stone grindingmeal, sand

- Clay

- Materials may be added to bio-wastedestined for application to permanentgrassland, also in mixtures.

Notes:

1) Based on the Ordinance for the introduction of the European Waste Catalogue (EAKV 1996) and LAGA WasteCatalogue 1990

2) Waste types based on LAGA Waste Catalogue3) and appropriate Ordinances


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

316


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

317

F2 QUANTITIES OF WASTE RECYCLED TO LAND

Farm Waste

Farm waste (animal manure, slurry and liquor) is used extensively as a fertiliser on agriculturalland. The annual output from animal husbandry (cattle, pigs, chickens) has been estimated at222 million tonnes (solid and liquid manure) (Table F8). This contains over 1 million tonnes ofnitrogen, which is utilised as fertiliser on agricultural land (Döhler et al., 1999, Döhler, 1998).

Table F8 Animal units and farm waste (fertiliser) production/application to land inGermany (1997) (Döhler et al., 1999)

Animal type Animal units

(Million)

Liquidmanure

(slurry) 1)

(x106 t)

Solidmanure(x106 t)

Liquidmanure

(liquor) 2)

(x106 t)

Fertilisertotal

(x106 t)

Cattle 13.3 94.1 32.6 8.7 135.4

Pigs 2.6 61.6 11.9 4.5 77.9

Poultry ~ 0.2 0.9 7.5 - 8.4

Total 16.1 156.6 52.0 13.2 221.7

Note: Assumed dry solids (DS) content: 1) Cattle 10%, pigs 5%, poultry 15%; 2) 2%

Other, somewhat more detailed data have been collated earlier (presented as tonnage drymatter), together with information on nutrient content as set out in Table F9.

Table F9 Estimated quantities of organic residues recycled to agricultural land inGermany (Eurich-Menden et al., 1995, presented in Döhler, 1998)

Waste type Total quantity(x106t/a DS)

Nutrient (t/a)

N P2O5

Cattle slurry 8.1 397,413 215,400

Pig slurry 1.5 228,384 165,920

Poultry slurry 0.2 17,226 14,080

Cattle solid manure 16.2 266,888 213,510

Pig solid manure 1.7 34,680 42,840

Poultry solid manure 0.5 34,425 42,300

Cattle liquid manure 0.3 40,320 2,240

Pig liquid manure 0.1 17,100 3,420

Total 28.6 1,036,436 699,710Notes: DS = dry substance

* the amount applied to land (3 Mt/a) represents about one third of the total (about 50%is disposed of, and about 10% incinerated).


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

318

Industrial Waste

The recent introduction of the Waste Avoidance and Recycling Act has lead to increasedoffers of organic and mineral waste and by-products from industry to farmers for use asfertilisers and soil improvers on agricultural land.

The increase is expected mainly in the form of compost, i.e. an increase from 1.3 milliontonnes (as dry substance) in 1995 to 40 million tonnes by 2005 has been predicted (Döhler,1998). Thus, apart from solid manure, compost is expected to become the most importantresidue used in agriculture.

Mineral Waste/By-products

With respect to mineral waste and by-products, it has been estimated that at least 3 milliontonnes per year are used in agriculture (Gonser et al. 1999). A summary of the available datain terms of tonnage produced and amounts used in agriculture, where available, is shown inTable F10. Of these, the most significant in terms of tonnage, are from the followingindustries:

• Sugar production (carbonation sludge);

• Construction/maintenance in the water sector (dredging material);

• Mineral extraction industry/quarrying.

Other significant contributions come from the following:

• Chemical industry (ammonium sulphate and lime containing residues);

• Industrial water treatment (water softening sludges);

• Iron and steel production (kiln and converter lime).

Other industries mentioned:

• Coal fired power stations (gypsum, ash);

• Biomass power stations (wood ash);

• Drinking water treatment plants (sludge, bentonite suspensions).

The data, however, are incomplete; in many cases the amount used in agriculture is notknown.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

319

Table F10 Overview of Production and Agricultural Use of Mineral Waste and By-Products (Gonser et al., 1999)

Sector Branch Waste/By-Product Fertiliser Type(DüMV)

BioAbfV1) Production1,000 t/a

Agricultural use1,000 t/a (%)

Reference year(for occurrence

data)

Titanium dioxideproduction

Iron-II-sulfate2) Iron Salts 650 5 (0.8) 1996

Capro-lactam production Ammonium sulfate2) Ammonium Sulphate 267 267 (100) 1996

Soda production Slake lime residues3) Residual lime 77 9 (12) 1996

Chemical Industry

Lime nitrogen conversion Lime residues2,3) Residual lime 78 39 (50) 1996

Power Stations:

- Brown coal Furnace bottom ash 2,560 ND 1996

- Coal/Brown coal Brown coal briquetting fly ash4) Residual lime 120 3 (2.5) 1997

- Coal/Brown coal Fluidised bed ash 260 ND 1996

- Coal/Brown coal TAV – ash (from gastreatment)

60 ND 1996

- Coal/Brown coal REA – gypsum (from gastreatment)

Calcium sulfate 4,900 ND 1996

Energy Production

Bio-mass incineration Grate/furnace bottom ash 80 ND 1997

Rock/Soil 16,000 600 (3.8) 1987

Quarry sand X 6,000 20 (0.3) 1987

Mineral extraction

Stone/rock powder Residual lime 5) X 800 40 (5) 1987

Mineral processing Rock grinding sludge ND ND

Gypsum waste Calcium sulfate 30 3 (10) 1991

Clay and MineralExploitation

Ceramics

Adsorber lime X ND ND

Iron production Foundry lime Foundry lime 6,8806) 55 (0.8) 1993

Converter lime/ ’Thomas’ lime Converter lime 4,6007) 396 (8.6) 1996

‘Thomas’ process phosphate ‘Thomas’ phosphate

Steel production

Furnace slag Converter lime 100-300 ND 1994

Metal Production andProcessing

Foundries Furnace slag ND ND

UndergroundConstruction

Bentonite X ND ND

Fire ExtinguisherMaintenance

Fire extinguisher powderresidues

2 ND 1996

Water Supply Drinking water treatment Decarbonation sludge3) Residual lime X 55 ND 1992


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

320

Sector Branch Waste/By-Product Fertiliser Type(DüMV)

BioAbfV1) Production1,000 t/a

Agricultural use1,000 t/a (%)

Reference year(for occurrence

data)

Fe/Mn sludge3) X 13 ND 1992

Flocculation sludge3) X 42 ND 1992

Water treatment(industrial use)

KZA – decarbonation sludge3) Carbonated lime X 180 60 (33) 1996

HydraulicsEngineering

Dredging spoil8) 2,570 940 (36) 1990-1995

Sugar Industry Carbonation sludge3) Carbonated lime X 820 795 (97) 1996-1997

1) X: waste/by-product permitted as mineral additive in the treatment of bio-waste (BioAbfV - Bio-Waste Ordinance 1998)2) Production and agricultural use of one company (no total amount available)3) Amount presented as dry substance4) Production and agricultural use in the Rhine region (no total amount available)5) Residues from limestone and dolomite processing are permitted as ‘residual lime’6) The production figure relates total blast furnace slag; of this, only a proportion is processed to produce foundry lime7) Total production of converter slag, incl. electro-furnace slag; of this, only a proportion is formed as converter/’Thomas’ lime or ‘Thomas’ phosphate, respectively8) Amount relates to original substance; conversion of m3 to t, assuming an average density of 1.65 t m-3

ND = No Data


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

321

Organic Waste

In order to provide a decision aid for the classification of wastes with respect to their re-usepotentials, the Federal Environment Agency has funded the setting up of a database. Theoriginal aim seems to have been to include material origins, volumes produced and applied toland, and qualitative data. However, it was pointed out that much of the information wasdifficult to obtain or unavailable and still incomplete (Anon, 2000). The database has beenobtained (KTBL, 2000), but does not appear to contain any quantitative data, focusing insteadon qualitative data and information about the potential application of wastes on land, includinginformation about appropriate methods of application. Work is in progress to obtain furtherdata and expand the database with a view to providing a user friendly decision aid for the re-use of waste materials on land.

Concerning organic wastes, the database contains some 300 materials from the followingindustrial sectors and farming:

• Plant production and processing;

• Food production;

• Wood processing;

• Animal husbandry and processing;

• Other industrial and municipal wastes.

Although originally set up to cover biological/organic waste, the database has also beenextended to cover mineral waste/by-products.

It must be stressed that much of the organic waste applied to land is first turned into compostand then applied as such.

Table F 11 includes the only available data on organic waste amounts, other than farm waste,applied to agricultural land, i.e. crop residues, compost, peat, bark products and, forcomparison, sewage sludge.

Table F11 Quantities of organic waste applied to agricultural land (Eurich-Menden etal., 1995, presented in Döhler, 1998)

Nutrient (t/a)Waste type Total quantity(Mt/a DS) N P2O5

Crop residues 18.0 256,175 93,277

Compost 1.3 16,510 8,450

Peat 0.4 3069 -

Bark products 0.3 2,832 -

Sewage sludge 3.0 174,000 141,000


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

322


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

323

F3 QUALITY OF WASTES SPREAD ON LAND

The Database on Organic and Mineral Wastes and Fertilisers (KTBL, 2000) which has beenset up by KTBL and other research organisations (funded by the Federal EnvironmentAgency), focuses on the classification of wastes with respect to their re-use potentials(agricultural, horticultural, forestry) and qualitative data for the waste materials. Qualitativedata are often based on single sample analyses and can, therefore, only give a roughindication of the waste composition/quality.

The database also provides details about the potential application of wastes on land, includinginformation about relevant legislation, physical properties and appropriate methods ofapplication.

The aim of the database is to provide a decision aid for producers and users of wastematerials, as well as those involved in waste processing and distribution, and advisory bodiesengaged in assisting farmers.

The qualitative data that can be extracted from the database are very specific in terms ofwaste types and cannot readily be summarised in terms of wider waste groups from specificindustrial sectors. In addition, different sets of results can only be extracted, tabulatedseparately. Consequently, some examples have been selected for the waste types of interestthat are not already covered by the summarised mineral waste information provided below.Some of these examples extracted from the database (KTBL 1999) have been collated fromseveral data sets to provide a wider range of values and parameters.

Examples of qualitative data for farm animal and other organic wastes, extracted from thisdatabase, are presented in the following tables.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

324

Farm waste

POULTRY MANURE

ID-No. Parameter MIN MEAN MAX Unit n

4 N-total 2.82 5.14 8.39 % DS 75 P-total 1.14 1.98 2.90 % DS 76 K-total 1.55 2.78 4.29 % DS 77 Mg-total 0.45 0.56 0.77 % DS 78 Ca-total 1.65 1.65 1.65 % DS 110 C- total 31.98 % DS 117 pH 5.70 5.80 6.00 - 320 NO3-N-(CaCl2)-

soluble494.62 645.16 881.72 mg/100g DS 3

21 NH4-N-(CaCl2)-soluble

838.71 1096.77 1333.33 mg/100g DS 7

33 Na 1600.00 2000.00 2300.00 mg/kg DS 3111 Water content 43.20 53.50 64.10 % FS 7

PIG MANURE


4 N-total 3.40 3.80 4.20 % DS 25 P- total 1.19 1.72 2.24 % DS 26 K- total 2.08 2.32 2.57 % DS 27 Mg- total 0.48 0.72 0.96 % DS 28 Ca- total 3.10 3.89 4.61 % DS 210 C- total 46.80 48.66 50.52 % DS 226 Cd 0.20 0.40 0.50 mg/kg DS 227 Hg 0.01 0.02 0.03 mg/kg DS 228 Zn 406.00 569.00 732.00 mg/kg DS 229 Cu 395.00 395.50 396.00 mg/kg DS 230 Cr 5.20 6.50 7.70 mg/kg DS 231 Ni 6.90 7.20 7.40 mg/kg DS 232 Pb 4.60 6.00 7.40 mg/kg DS 2111 Water content 73.90 76.80 79.70 % FS 2


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

325

DAIRY CATTLE – LIQUID MANURE


4 N-total 2.48 4.83 7.67 % DS 125 P- total 0.55 0.87 1.42 % DS 126 K- total 3.39 5.03 6.67 % DS 1221 NH4-N-(CaCl2)-

soluble1361.39 2475.25 3465.35 mg/100g

DS12

111 Water content 77.00 91.92 96.10 % FS 12

BEEF CATTLE – LIQUID MANURE


4 N-total 3.33 4.95 12.27 % DS 275 P-total 0.80 1.12 2.24 % DS 206 K-total 3.39 4.83 9.13 % DS 207 Mg-total 0.52 0.80 1.66 % DS 148 Ca-total 1.43 1.93 2.24 % DS 410 C-total 43.60 % DS 111 Ash (550°C) 63.64 70.95 76.32 % DS 417 pH 7.08 7.26 7.60 - 420 NO3-N-(CaCl2)-

soluble0.20 mg/100g DS 1

21 NH4-N-(CaCl2)-soluble

1.84 4.36 9.54 mg/100g DS 6

22 P-(lactate)-soluble 465.47 mg/100g DS 123 K-(lactate)-soluble 867.57 mg/100g DS 124 Mg-(CaCl2)-soluble 81.79 mg/100g DS 126 Cd 0.20 0.20 0.20 mg/kg DS 327 Hg 0.02 0.07 0.10 mg/kg DS 328 Zn 125.00 143.00 177.00 mg/kg DS 329 Cu 27.00 31.70 35.00 mg/kg DS 330 Cr 2.90 5.30 6.50 mg/kg DS 331 Ni 2.10 3.90 5.50 mg/kg DS 332 Pb 5.50 6.40 7.20 mg/kg DS 334 As 0.62 mg/kg DS 135 Tl 0.18 mg/kg DS 136 Se 0.49 mg/kg DS 1111 Water content 89.40 90.00 90.80 % FS 3


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

326

BEEF CATTLE – SOLID MANURE


4 N-total 2.00 3.20 13.93 % DS 205 P-total 0.41 0.84 4.82 % DS 206 K-total 1.24 3.20 6.32 % DS 207 Mg-total 0.22 0.59 1.55 % DS 98 Ca-total 1.94 3.02 5.26 % DS 410 C-total 44.07 47.21 49.65 % DS 411 Ash (550°C) 58.87 83.68 99.60 % DS 917 pH 8.17 8.54 9.00 - 921 NH4-N-(CaCl2)-

soluble333.33 1000.00 mg/100g DS 11

26 Cd 0.10 0.30 0.40 mg/kg DS 427 Hg 0.01 0.04 0.10 mg/kg DS 428 Zn 48.00 189.00 301.00 mg/kg DS 429 Cu 13.50 64.40 152.00 mg/kg DS 430 Cr 5.00 6.30 8.40 mg/kg DS 431 Ni 4.00 4.80 5.80 mg/kg DS 432 Pb 7.90 10.20 14.50 mg/kg DS 433 Na 4300.00 mg/kg DS 1111 Water content 68.00 78.46 86.90 % FS 20

Waste from food and drinks preparation:

VEGETABLE WASTE


4 N-total 3.00 3.80 4.90 % DS 35 P-total 0.23 0.37 0.49 % DS 36 K-total 0.42 0.58 0.83 % DS 37 Mg-total 0.36 0.40 0.60 % DS 38 Ca-total 2.05 3.02 3.69 % DS 310 C-total 50.00 55.00 60.00 % DS 311 Ash (550°C) 82.40 % DS 117 pH 6.40 - 118 Salt content 1.49 g/l S 126 Cd 0.15 0.35 0.50 mg/kg DS 327 Hg 0.01 0.01 0.01 mg/kg DS 328 Zn 70.00 85.00 100.00 mg/kg DS 329 Cu 3.00 5.20 8.50 mg/kg DS 330 Cr 1.05 2.25 4.80 mg/kg DS 331 Ni 1.50 3.20 5.00 mg/kg DS 332 Pb 1.00 1.80 2.00 mg/kg DS 3111 Water content 92.80 % FS 1


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

327

Blood and gut contents from abattoir waste:

ABATTOIR WASTE - Dataset A


4 N-total 1.83 2.39 2.72 % DS 55 P-total 0.47 0.51 0.57 % DS 56 K-total 0.53 0.73 0.93 % DS 57 Mg-total 0.10 0.16 0.21 % DS 58 Ca-total 0.40 0.85 1.32 % DS 510 C-total 43.50 43.80 44.10 % DS 517 pH 5.40 5.80 6.70 - 620 NO3-N-(CaCl2)-soluble 0.62 1.11 2.47 mg/100g

DS6

21 NH4-N-(CaCl2)- soluble 55.56 141.98 308.64 mg/100gDS

6

22 P-(lactate)- soluble 149.38 306.91 366.67 mg/100gDS

6

23 K-(lactate)- soluble 307.41 558.46 778.76 mg/100gDS

6

24 Mg-(CaCl2)- soluble 69.60 113.40 169.20 mg/100gDS

5

28 Zn 570.00 mg/kg DS 129 Cu 150.00 mg/kg DS 1111 Water content 80.20 83.80 86.80 % FS 5

ABATTOIR WASTE - Dataset B4 N-total 8.80 9.20 9.60 % DS 25 N-total 2.38 6.73 11.09 % DS 26 K-total 0.08 0.25 0.42 % DS 27 Mg- total 0.06 0.18 0.30 % DS 28 Ca- total 2.52 7.06 11.59 % DS 214 Mn 8.00 15.00 22.00 mg/kg DS 228 Zn 79.00 117.00 155.00 mg/kg DS 229 Cu 7.00 18.50 30.00 mg/kg DS 2111 Water content 4.40 5.10 5.80 % FS 2


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

328

BLOOD


4 N-total 11.40 % DS 15 P- total 1.58 % DS 16 K- total 0.25 % DS 17 Mg- total 0.24 % DS 18 Ca- total 2.59 % DS 114 Mn 17.00 mg/kg DS 128 Zn 32.00 mg/kg DS 129 Cu 6.00 mg/kg DS 1111 Water content 7.30 % FS 1

Wood waste, plant and other plant materials:

WOOD WASTE


4 N-total 0.02 0.61 1.20 % DS 25 P-total 0.01 0.03 0.04 % DS 26 K-total 0.03 0.18 0.33 % DS 27 Mg-total 0.01 0.04 0.06 % DS 28 Ca-total 0.09 0.50 0.30 % DS 211 Ash (550°C) - 99.53 - % DS 112 B - 2.31 - mg/kg DS 117 pH - 4.98 - - 126 Cd 0.08 0.30 0.40 mg/kg DS 427 Hg 0.01 0.10 0.33 mg/kg DS 528 Zn 14.70 80.18 203.00 mg/kg DS 429 Cu 4.00 23.88 73.00 mg/kg DS 530 Cr 0.60 5.50 18.00 mg/kg DS 431 Ni 0.80 3.75 11.00 mg/kg DS 432 Pb 0.60 29.90 76.00 mg/kg DS 433 Na - 0.01 - mg/kg DS 134 As 1.00 1.25 1.49 mg/kg DS 237 Cl 60.00 1329.25 2558.0

0mg/kg DS 4

75 Benzo(a)pyrene - 1810.00 - µg/kg DS 176 Pentachlorophenol - 1900.00 - µg/kg DS 1110 Specific weight - 70.00 - g/l FS 1111 Water content - 17.00 - % FS 1


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

329

Textile waste:

WOOL DUST


4 N-total 6.67 % DS 15 P- total 0.08 % DS 16 K- total 0.63 % DS 17 Mg- total 0.19 % DS 18 Ca- total 0.50 % DS 19 S- total 0.73 % DS 111 Ash (550°C) 60.81 % DS 112 B 15.84 mg/kg DS 113 Mo 0.53 mg/kg DS 114 Mn 247.13 mg/kg DS 115 Fe 9456.08 mg/kg DS 116 Basisity 2.10 % DS 117 pH 6.90 - 126 Cd 0.72 mg/kg DS 127 Hg 0.03 mg/kg DS 128 Zn 214.86 mg/kg DS 129 Cu 20.00 mg/kg DS 130 Cr 11.51 mg/kg DS 131 Ni 7.26 mg/kg DS 132 Pb 10.00 mg/kg DS 134 As 1.47 mg/kg DS 135 Tl 0.03 mg/kg DS 138 o.p'-DDD 1.00 µg/kg DS 139 o.p'-DDE 1.00 µg/kg DS 140 o.p'-DDT 1.00 µg/kg DS 141 p.p'-DDD 1.00 µg/kg DS 142 p.p'-DDE 3.00 µg/kg DS 143 p.p'-DDT 2.00 µg/kg DS 144 Aldrin 1.00 µg/kg DS 145 Endrin 1.00 µg/kg DS 146 Dieldrin 2.00 µg/kg DS 147 Heptachlor 1.00 µg/kg DS 148 alpha-HCH 3.00 µg/kg DS 149 beta-HCH 7.00 µg/kg DS 150 gamma-HCH 0.26 µg/kg DS 151 delta-HCH 1.00 µg/kg DS 153 Hexachlorbenzene 1.00 µg/kg DS 154 PCB-28 1.00 µg/kg DS 155 PCB-52 1.00 µg/kg DS 156 PCB-101 3.00 µg/kg DS 157 PCB-138 5.00 µg/kg DS 158 PCB-153 5.00 µg/kg DS 159 PCB-180 4.00 µg/kg DS 1


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

330

ID-No. Parameter MIN MEAN MAX Unit n64 Benz(b)fluroanthene 80.00 µg/kg DS 165 Benzo(ghi)perylene 40.00 µg/kg DS 166 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 10.00 µg/kg DS 169 Fluoranthene 70.00 µg/kg DS 174 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 10.00 µg/kg DS 175 Benzo(a)pyrene 10.00 µg/kg DS 1109 AOX 112.00 mg/kg DS 1111 Water content 6.90 % FS 1

COTTON WASTE

ID-No.

Parameter MIN MEAN MAX Unit n

4 N-total 0.50 0.92 1.20 % DS 45 P-total 0.53 % DS 17 Mg-total 0.24 % DS 18 Ca-total 1.01 % DS 110 C-total 31.70 % DS 111 Ash (550°C) 69.60 % DS 112 B 81.30 mg/kg DS 113 Mo 0.52 mg/kg DS 114 Mn 68.30 mg/kg DS 115 Fe 543.00 mg/kg DS 117 pH 2.80 - 126 Cd 0.05 0.21 0.45 mg/kg DS 427 Hg 0.01 0.06 1.00 mg/kg DS 428 Zn 15.30 30.00 45.70 mg/kg DS 429 Cu 2.40 3.65 5.30 mg/kg DS 430 Cr 0.90 1.26 2.43 mg/kg DS 431 Ni 0.80 1.65 2.80 mg/kg DS 432 Pb 3.30 6.30 8.50 mg/kg DS 434 As 1.80 mg/kg DS 1


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

331

Wastes from the leather and tannery industry:

LEATHER POWDER/DUST


4 N-total 3.00 8.10 13.30 % DS 326 Cd 0.27 2.64 5.00 mg/kg DS 227 Hg 0.03 0.03 0.03 mg/kg DS 228 Zn 94.80 99.9 105.00 mg/kg DS 229 Cu 10.00 66.05 122.10 mg/kg DS 230 Cr 894.00 7959.70 16985.00 mg/kg DS 331 Ni 5.90 mg/kg DS 132 Pb 10.00 25.20 40.40 mg/kg DS 234 As 0.70 mg/kg DS 1111 Water content 11.10 % FS 1Note: DS = dry substance FS = fresh substance

Mineral Waste Review

Although details are also contained in the waste database (KTL 2000), quality data for mineralwaste materials has been gathered in an extensive research project, funded by the FederalEnvironment Agency, and summarised in a research report (Gonser et al., 1999). Thesummarised data are presented below.

The data are presented for 10 industrial sectors (with sub-sections), as follows:

1. Waste incineration;

2. Chemical industry;

3. Energy production;

4. Clay and mineral exploitation;

5. Metal production and processing;

6. Underground construction;

7. Fire extinguisher maintenance;

8. Water supply;

9. Hydraulics engineering; and

10. Sugar industry.

The qualitative data are presented as follows:

a) Physico-chemical parameters (water content, ash content, conductivity, pH) (Table F12);


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

332

b) Nutrients (macro-nutrients: total nitrogen, ammonia nitrogen, total phosphorus, potassium,calcium, total sulfur; and micro-nutrients: iron and manganese) (Table F13);

c) Heavy metal/metalloid content (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury, nickel,lead, thallium, zinc) (Table F14) and

d) Organic contaminants (PCB, PAH, benzo-(a)-pyrene, PCDD/PCDF, AOX) (Table F15).

There are clearly many gaps in the data, i.e. no analyses available for many types of wasteand data missing for certain parameters. Where data are available, the number of samplesanalysed are relatively small, often only one sample. Nevertheless, the data can provide anindication of the quality of the different types of waste, although in some cases, where severalsamples have been analysed, the results vary widely and can only indicate a very broadrange of values.

An evaluation of the available data for heavy metal/metalloid contamination of wastes againstthe values prescribed in the Bio-Waste Ordinance and the Sewage Sludge Ordinance ispresented in Table F16. This indicates a relatively small number of waste types (6 out of 25)complying with the standards set for biological/organic wastes, whilst the majority of wastes(19 out of 25) exceed one or more of these heavy metal/metalloid standards. Of the latter, 8waste types also exceed the much higher values set for sewage sludge.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

333

Table F12 Physico-chemical Parameters of Examined Mineral Wastes and By-Products (Gonser et al., 1999)

Physico-chemical ParameterSector Branch Waste/By-Product

Waste/By- Product

DetailWater Content

%Ash

% DSConductivity

mS cm-1pH-Value

Sewage sludgeincineration

Bottom ash andslag

Data setsRange

40.30-0.50

50.13-1.0

28,600-10,300

212.1-12.2

Waste Incineration

Municipal wasteincineration

REA – gypsum(gas treatment)

Data setsRange

810.0-17.9

815.0-20.6

0ND

0ND

Titanium dioxideproduction

Iron-II-sulfate Data setsRange

13.0

0ND

0ND

13.0

Capro-lactamproduction

Ammonium sulfate Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

Soda production Slake limeresidues

Data setsRange

64.0-20.0

117.3

0ND

112.5

Acetyleneproduction

Carbide sludge Data setsRange

644.3-67.5

224.6-28.5

0ND

112.4

Chemical Industry

Lime/nitrogenconversion

Lime residues Data setsRange

118.0-27.0

0ND

0ND

0ND

Furnace bottomash

Coal/Brown coal Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

Brown coalbriquetting fly ash

Brown coal(lignite)

Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

Coal (anthracite) Data setsRange

0ND

204.3-20.9

22,500-8,110

311.9-13.3

Fly ash

Brown coal Data setsRange

0ND

290.1-3.0

0ND

0ND

Fluidised bed –bottom ash

Coal Data setsRange

0ND

70.33-4.0

12,800

111.5

Coal Data setsRange

0ND

80.33-20.0

21,030-1,830

210.8-11.9

Fluidised bed – flyash


0ND

50.88-16.1

0ND

0ND

SAV – ash (fromgas treatment)

Coal Data setsRange

11.0-4.0

0ND

0ND

0ND

Coal Data setsRange

0ND

15.7

0ND

0ND

TAV – ash (fromgas treatment)


20.2

0ND

0ND

0ND

Coal Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

Energy Production Coal fired powerstations

REA – gypsum(from gastreatment) Brown coal Data sets

Range3

13.3-23.40

ND0

ND1

6.8


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

334


Waste/By- Product

DetailWater Content

%Ash

% DSConductivity

mS cm-1pH-Value

Desulphurisationproduct

Coal Data setsRange

150.06-0.67

0ND

0ND

0ND

Forest wood Data setsRange

20.30-15.4

23.0-44.0

211,000-116,000

28.9-13.6

Residual wood Data setsRange

190.10-54.5

190.10-46.7

0ND

217.9-13.3

Grate/furnacebottom ash

Waste wood Data setsRange

0ND

100.80-5.2

0ND

0ND


0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

Residual wood Data setsRange

10.10

12.9

0ND

28.9-13.9

Bio-massincineration

Fly ash


0ND

815.2-34.1

0ND

0ND

Mineral extraction Stone/rock powder Data setsRange

30.1-17.4

60.9-2.4

0ND

68.0-9.0

Mineral processing Rock grindingsludge

Data setsRange

126.4-54.6

11.2-31.9

0ND

0ND

‘White’ (ceramic)Sludge

Data setsRange

119.9-73.5

11.0-10.4

0ND

0ND


Ceramics

Adsorber lime (gastreatment)

Data setsRange

11.7

21.6-2.7

0ND

17.5

Iron production Foundry lime Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

Converter lime/’Thomas’ lime

Data setsRange

112.6

0ND

0ND

0ND

Steel production

‘Thomas’ processphosphate

Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

Foundry wastesand

Data setsRange

12.3

13.1

114.6

15.4

Furnace slag Data setsRange

14.8-9.7

10.10

0ND

0ND

Foundries

Magnesium oxidedust

Data setsRange

20.54-0.83

13.3

1163

110.3

Metal Productionand Processing

Aluminiumproduction

‘Red’ sludge/mud Data setsRange

140.0

85.5-12.0

0ND

0ND

Surface Treatment Phosphatisingsludge

Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

Paper Production Bottom ash frompaper sludgeincineration

Data setsRange

242.9-64.4

10.20-40.7

0ND

29.2-12.8


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

335


Waste/By- Product

DetailWater Content

%Ash

% DSConductivity

mS cm-1pH-Value

Bottom ash fromde-inking sludgeincineration

Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND


Bentonite Data setsRange

583.7-91.5

30.60-10.0

31,200-,410

510.4-12.8


Fire extinguisherpowder residues

ABC – powder Data setsRange

20.70-4.7

162.7

0ND

24.3-5.1

Decarbonationsludge

Data setsRange

630.0-98.0

155.5

0ND

18.4-9.0

Decarbonationpellets

Data setsRange

120.0-40.0

0ND

0ND

0ND

Fe/Mn sludge Data setsRange

1143.8-99.9

10.50-57.4

1456

36.0-12.9

Drinking watertreatment

Flocculationsludge

Data setsRange

935.0-99.9

60.50-59.0

0ND

56.0-11.7

KZA – sludge(decarbonation)

Data setsRange

61.6-55.0

0ND

0ND

57.0-11.1

Water Supply



Data setsRange

11.0-2.0

0ND

0ND

0ND

River water Data setsRange

1313.3-64.3

1350.30-41.0

0ND

17.4


Dredging spoils/Sediments

Lake water Data setsRange

268.0-85.0

27.0-25.0

0ND

35.4-8.8

Sugar Industry Carbonationsludge

Data setsRange

830.0-55.0

35.0-12.5

0ND

0ND

Note: ND = no data


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

336

Table F13 Nutrient Contents of Examined Mineral Wastes and By-Products (Gonser et al., 1999)

Macro Nutrient Micro NutrientSector Branch Waste/By- Product

Waste/By-ProductDetail

N-total% DS

NH4-N

% DSP-total% DS

K-total% DS

Mg-total% DS

Ca-total% DS

S-total% DS

Femg kg-1

DS

Mnmg kg-1

DSSewagesludgeincineration

Bottom ash andslag

Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

55.0-8.0

11.1

11.3

57.2-16.1

50.50-1.2

519,600-125,000

110,800

WasteIncineration

Municipalwasteincineration


Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

8<0.01-0.07

80.02-0.07

8<0.01-0.01

823.2-25.3

818.2-20.0

8559-979

863.1-126

Titaniumdioxideproduction

Iron-II-sulfat Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

10.72

10.31

0ND

1201,000

0ND


Ammoniumsulfate

Data setsRange

121.0

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

124.0

0ND

0ND

Sodaproduction

Slake limeresidue

Data setsRange

1<0.01

1<0.01

20.03-0.05

30.35-0.53

50.63-3.3

50.75-38.2

10.47

38,690-18,300

2397-968

Acetyleneproduction


0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

5<0.01-

3.4

643.0-53.0

2<0.01-0.06

0ND

0ND

ChemicalIndustry

Limenitrogenconversion


10.50-1.5

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

135.0

10.20-1.2

0ND

0ND

Furnace bottomash

Coal/ Browncoal

Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

1<0.04

30.08-4.6

30.30-4.2

30.43-28.6

30.04-1.6

34,890-

489,000

1ND-

1,550Brown coalbriquetting flyash

Brown coal(lignite)

Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

1<0.22

60.08-0.42

62.9-7.2

632.2-43.0

63.7-6.0

670,600-105,000

63,080-3,870

Coal(anthracite)

Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

2<0.01-0.01

140.08-4.2

140.05-3.8

140.19-26.0

140.03-5.4

305,950-

127,000

1834.7-571

Fly ash


0ND

0ND

21<0.01-

1.1

430.08-4.2

900.30-6.1

911.4-28.6

900.2-6.0

9110,500-244,000

30218-2,120

EnergyProduction

Coal firedpowerstations

Fluidised bed -fly ash

Coal Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

30.10-0.34

50.58-3.1

50.60-1.5

57.2-28.6

52.0-8.0

721,000-96,900

5494-916


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

337

Sector Branch Waste/By- Product


Macro Nutrient Micro Nutrient

Coal Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

7<0.01-0.44

80.41-6.6

80.60-1.6

85.1-33.7

91.5-6.1

928,400-105,000

5466-876

Fluidised bed -bottom ash


0ND

0ND

40.03-0.09

60.10-2.6

61.3-6.2

614.6-30.3

6-2.8-4.4

638,400-159,000

5774-3,320


Coal Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

1ND-0.52

50.12-1.2

5<0.48-

1.8

914.3-42.9

82.9-26.8

32,100-35,000

0ND

Coal Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

10.96

30.42-2.5

30.28-1.8

47.2-29.5

32.5-11.6

314,000-175,000

1178



0ND

0ND

20.13-<0.22

10.17-0.25

42.9-9.0

429.3-43.0

22.0-6.8

455,900-168,000

32,670-3,100

Coal Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

125.3

117.7

0ND

0ND

REA – gypsum(from gastreatment) Brown coal Data sets

Range0

ND0

ND0

ND0

ND2

0.03-0.23

222.7-26.6

117.4

21,810-3,360

214.0-74.0


Coal Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

160.21-0.38

160.28-0.40

160.28-0.46

166.0-35.0

161.3-11.5

1614,900-81,800

15196-


0ND

0ND

30.39-1.5

202.4-10.0

201.0-5.3

2021.0-49.0

170.13-1.8

0ND

21,000-30,000

Residualwood

Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

210.11-1.4

220.17-14.3

220.25-8.8

220.90-32.0

0ND

212,900-45,000

221,100-22,900



0ND

0ND

80.10-0.66

80.47-3.6

81.3-1.9

810.7-25.2

80.07-4.1

820,000-106,000

8800-2,800


0ND

0ND

0ND

814.2-30.2

80.75-3.1

84.5-21.6

17.4

0ND

0ND

Residualwood

Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

10.44

29.1-17.0

21.7-2.3

27.9-8.8

0ND

24,300-8,000

24,600-13,400


Fly ash


6<0.01-0.28

0ND

60.09-0.46

62.6-7.7

60.24-1.3

64.0-17.9

61.2-3.8

62,900-10,000

6400-700


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

338




Mineralextraction

Stone/rockpowder

Data setsRange

20.03-0.10

1<0.01

19<0.01-0.83

370.01-3.3

380.01-13.0

350.89-38.9

70.52-0.20

35172-

97,900

35109-2,320

Mineralprocessing

Rock grindingsludge

Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

10.42

11.8

0ND

0ND

0ND

‘White’ (ceramic)sludge

Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

0ND

11.1-3.5

10.29-1.3

11.1-12.0

0ND

1501-3,150

163.1-820

Clay andMineralExploitation

Ceramics

Adsorber lime(gas treatment)

Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

10.77

139.0

0ND

0ND

0ND

Ironproduction

Foundry lime Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

Converterlime/’Thomas’lime

Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

50.20-0.53

3<0.01-0.03

91.3-5.2

1031.3-37.9

20.10

216,000-166,000

131,000

Steelproduction

‘Thomas’phosphate

Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

35.3-6.5

20.02-0.13

21.4-1.6

433.7-40.6

0ND

3120,000-124,000

315,500-15,600

Foundry wastesand

Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

1<0.01

10.01

0ND

1420

17.8


0ND

0ND

10.01

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

14,740-

104,000

0ND

Foundries

Magnesiumoxide dust

Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

10.03

10.53

239.4-48.2

20.30-0.67

10.56

223,400-251,000

1740

MetalProductionandProcessing

Aluminiumproduction

‘Red’sludge/mud

Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

70.06-0.27

60.03-0.05

40.02-0.08

70.43-2.5

80.07-0.20

8175,000-367-000

689.6-348

SurfaceTreatment

Phosphatisationsludge

Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

14.2

0ND

0ND

122.8

0ND

1203,000

111,500


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

339




Ash from papersludgeincineration

Data setsRange

2<0.10-0.58

1<0.02

20.04-0.70

20.20-5.5

20.26-1.6

23.4-25.9

0ND

12,900-26,000

0ND

PaperProduction

Ash from de-inking sludgeincineration

Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

0ND

10.66-1.2

12.4-3.4

110.0-21.5

10.20-0.40

17,000-14,000

0ND



10.06

20.09-0.10

30.04-0.09

40.21-0.58

40.06-1.4

40.64-8.4

0ND

0ND

0ND

FireExtinguisherMaintenance


ABC -powder

Data setsRange

411.1-15.5

40.60-13.2

310.6-16.5

10.02

20.05-0.09

20.19-0.89

35.2-9.4

0ND

0ND

Decarbonationsludge

Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

10.13

2ND-1.0

50.21-5.5

101.4-39.7

0ND

510,800-400,000

41,100-36,000


Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

10.05

21.0-39.8

0ND

230.0-8,790

210.0-899


20.13-0.47

0ND

9<0.01-

4.9

14<0.01-0.36

180.04-6.7

190.40-34.2

70.23-7.9

2087.0-

560,000

201.0-

173,000

Drinkingwatertreatment

Flocculationsludge

Data setsRange

30.72-5.0

20.14-0.45

30.14-2.6

50.01-8.3

50.11-1.8

50.27-38.2

20.22-0.30

760.0-

560,000

710.0-

151,000KZA – sludge(decarbonation)

Data setsRange

30.02-0.20

0ND

5<0.01-

1.0

30.02-0.42

40.30-2.4

415.7-37.9

10.26

2213-

35,000

2200-5,000

Water Supply

Watertreatment(industrialuse) Lime pellets Data sets

Range0

ND0

ND1

<0.01-0.35

1<0.01-0.25

10.06-0.60

130.7-39.3

0ND

169.9-1,400

1100-2,000


10.30

10.01

10.14

10.36

10.40

0ND

0ND

2471,100-

138,000

23539.0-5,600




30.03-2.0

0ND

10.04-0.64

10.10-0.99

10.13-1.6

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND


Data setsRange

50.30-0.60

0ND

90.33-0.74

10.08

90.24-2.4

921.5-37.9

0ND

0ND

0ND

Note: ND = no data


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

340

Table F14 Heavy Metal Contents of Examined Mineral Wastes and By-Products (Gonser et al., 1999)

Heavy MetalsSector Branch Waste/By-Product

Waste/By-ProductDetail As

mg kg-1

DS

Cdmg kg-1

DS

Crmg kg-1

DS

Cumg kg-1

DS

Hgmg kg-1

DS

Nimg kg-1

DS

Pbmg kg-1 DS

Tlmg kg-1

DS

Znmg kg-1 DS

SewagesludgeIncineration

Bottom ash andslag

Data setsRange

28.8-12.4

16.0

1437

1998

40.10-13.7

1165

1245

0ND

22,200-2,410

WasteIncineration

Municipalwasteincineration


Data setsRange

80.05-2.2

60.50-9.9

86.5-22.0

87.5-14.0

81.9-2.9

89.0-16.0

863.8-275

40.50

845.0-87.5

Titaniumdioxideproduction

Iron-II-sulfate Data setsRange

0ND

1<0.10

1<10.3

1<1.0

1<0.10

0ND

1<5.2

0ND

0ND


Ammoniumsulfate

Data setsRange

1<1.0

0ND

11.0

1<1.0

11.0

1<1.0

1<1.0

0ND

0ND

Sodaproduction

Slake limeresidues

Data setsRange

23.8-8.0

20.1-0.35

33.8-15.0

310.0-22.0

30.01-0.09

47.5-21.0

48.1-53.1

0ND

340.0-61.0

Acetyleneproduction


0ND

40.04-1.2

0ND

23.0-5.1

40.02-0.22

56.8-36.9

54.6-113

40.73-1.8

123.0

ChemicalIndustry

Lime/nitrogenconversion


0ND

10.35

0ND

13.9

1<0.20

0ND

11.3

0ND

19.0

Furnace bottomash

Coal/Browncoal

Data setsRange

122.0-112

50.08-6.5

518-830

52.2-410

4<0.01-

14

517.0-410

52.3-360

0ND

517.0-1,100

Brown coalbriquetting flyash

Brown coal(lignite)

Data setsRange

312.0

30.40-0.0

219.0-21.0

0ND

30.40-0.70

0ND

311.0-15.0

0ND

334.0-110

Coal(anthracite)

Data setsRange

1910.4-528

210.30-19.1

2014.4-248

2233.5-692

70.02-2.0

2147.6-660

2110.1-2,060

26.2-12.8

2258.5-2,400

Fly ash


33<0.01-

190

36<0.01-

517

44<0.05-

704

422.0-782

34<0.01-54.5

413.0-83.0

42<0.01-342

110.10-32.7

46<0.07-1,800

Fluidised bed -bottom ash

Coal Data setsRange

527.6-60.5

50.50-6.0

557.3-194

558.7-120

31.0

547.1-209

51.0-32.3

0ND

578.8-330

EnergyProduction

Coal firedpower stations

Fluidised bed -fly ash

Coal Data setsRange

518.9-49.2

53.0-8.0

558.4-176

516.9-166

51.0

551.1-176

54.1-134

0ND

548.3-488


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

341



mg kg-1

DS

Cdmg kg-1

DS

Crmg kg-1

DS

Cumg kg-1

DS

Hgmg kg-1

DS

Nimg kg-1

DS

Pbmg kg-1 DS

Tlmg kg-1

DS

Znmg kg-1 DS


37.0-37.5

40.48-5.4

412.0-156

42.4-71.1

30.35-1.0

415.0-45.0

41.0-98.0

0ND

424.8-109


Coal Data setsRange

10.40-360

50.1-5.0

43.0-60.0

43.0-80.0

3<0.10-10.0

51.4-125

54.0-550

0ND

415.0-120

Coal Data setsRange

1124

12.5

133.0

1329

11.6

173.0

1239

0ND

1342



0ND

20.29-0.30

229.2-29.3

211.2

0ND

22.4

26.9-7.0

0ND

227.5-27.6

Coal Data setsRange

30.33-5.0

40.02-0.53

40.70-45.6

30.60-6.7

40.04-1.4

40.11-10.8

40.08-11.9

0ND

44.7-58.3

REA – gypsum(from gastreatment)


10.60-2.5

30.05-0.50

21.0-5.0

21.0-4.0

10.40-1.5

21.0-5.0

33.0-40.0

0ND

314.6-130


Coal Data setsRange

1515.9-104

150.33-2.5

1537.0-182

15164-400

150.36-2.1

15122-252

1548.0-313

0ND

1564.0-430


182.5-11.4

200.10-12.0

313.0-133

2067.0-950

2<0.50

320.0-110

193.5-130

0ND

199.0-2,200

Residualwood

Data setsRange

122.8-46.7

13.3-13.0

2216.0-795

2243.0-1,280

1<0.50

518.0-235

410.0-1,400

0ND

2216.0-1,610



84.0-40.0

80.80-190

8150-730

8240-1,500

110.0

8150-240

8440-5,300

0ND

8600-22,000


89.9-0.3.0

844.5-136

0ND

8289-656

0ND

0ND

8464-2,960

0ND

814,400-42,400

Residualwood

Data setsRange

16.5

0ND

258.0-101

2370-1,450

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

21,420-6,200


Fly ash


60.80-280

660.0-630

6110-820

6340-530

21.3-4.0

643.0-170

6900-63,000

0ND

64,000-

178,000


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

342



mg kg-1

DS

Cdmg kg-1

DS

Crmg kg-1

DS

Cumg kg-1

DS

Hgmg kg-1

DS

Nimg kg-1

DS

Pbmg kg-1 DS

Tlmg kg-1

DS

Znmg kg-1 DS

Mineralextraction

Stone/rockpowder

Data setsRange

3<0.05-

2.5

18<0.10-

5.0

200.20-2,040

381.0-720

10<0.01-

2.7

200.60-2,760

190.60-625

2<0.10-0.15

383.5-1,400

Mineralprocessing

Rock grindingsludge

Data setsRange

11.6

11.6

0ND

0ND

11.6

0ND

0ND

0ND

150,600

‘White’ (ceramic)Sludge

Data setsRange

11.0-11.0

10.10-1.1

11.8-34.0

117.0-81.0

10.02-0.30

11.0-5.0

165.0-504

0ND

131.0-400


Ceramics

Adsorber lime(gas treatment0

Data setsRange

10.15

13.2

27.8-89.0

210.0-12.0

20.10-1.4

23.2-13.0

29.8-29.0

130.0

212.0-40.0

Iron production Foundry lime Data setsRange

0ND

1<0.10-0.35

222.0-217

12.0-18.0

1<0.01-0.14

1<0.50-

4.0

11.0-29.0

0ND

13.0-166

Converter lime/’Thomas’ lime

Data setsRange

0ND

40.02-0.09

6727-2,800

58.9-39.0

4<0.01-0.16

4<0.50-24.0

52.0-41.0

20.04-10.0

510.0-99.0

Steelproduction

‘Thomas’processphosphate

Data setsRange

12<0.01-

5.5

12<0.10-

3.3

15835-6,500

155.0-152

20.04

12<0.50-

120

133.0-90.0

1<0.10-1.5

143.0-390

Foundry wastesand

Data setsRange

10.22

0ND

10.76

12.2

0ND

0ND

12.2

0ND

173.0


0ND

0ND

1240-909

111.9-111

0ND

11.1-122

15.4-30.2

0ND

11.1-438

Foundries

Magnesiumoxide dust

Data setsRange

112.0

10.34

1240

1335

0ND

0ND

1260

10.60

110,600

MetalProduction andProcessing

Aluminiumproduction

‘Red’sludge/mud

Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

768.4-2,670

65.0

0ND

65.0-25.0

6100-263

0ND

65.0-33.0

SurfaceTreatment

Phosphatisationsludge

Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

0ND

147.0

0ND

1190

10.60

0ND

11,200

Ash from papersludgeincineration

Data setsRange

21.4-8.0

1<0.30-

4.4

152.0-71.0

157.0-299

1<0.10-

1.1

120.0-42.0

1125-166

0ND

1264-808

PaperProduction

Ash from de-inking sludgeincineration

Data setsRange

10.50-7.4

11.0-2.0

145.0-90.1

1260-400

1<0.05-0.15

122,0-57.1

160.1-160

0ND

1340-691


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

343



mg kg-1

DS

Cdmg kg-1

DS

Crmg kg-1

DS

Cumg kg-1

DS

Hgmg kg-1

DS

Nimg kg-1

DS

Pbmg kg-1 DS

Tlmg kg-1

DS

Znmg kg-1 DS



45.2-83.5

30.27-1.5

48.0-271

519.0-188

4<0.05-

2.1

44.0-165

410.0-447

1<0.05-0<0.50

441.0-1,180

FireExtinguisherMaintenance


ABC -powder

Data setsRange

211.0-11.6

40.84-3.0

34.8-11.5

55.0-92.0

40.05-0.30

31.5-5.2

37.9-14.0

0ND

52.7-150

Decarbonationsludge

Data setsRange

3<1.0-5.0

61.2-6.6

60.97-14.0

71.1-32.0

6<0.01-

1.0

91.1-

1,420

90.20-73.0

30.15-1.0

85.2-557


Data setsRange

20.10-0.40

0ND

22.0-3.3

15.0

0ND

11.0

0ND

10.03

25.4-8.0


140.05-1,100

14<2.0-77.1

14<5.0-176

16<5.0-2,140

140.01-4.4

16<5.0-900

16<5.0-200

30.04-0.20

160.74-704

Drinking watertreatment

Flocculationsludge

Data setsRange

73.7-134

8<0.01-

200

112.7-240

111.6-440

9<0.20-0.44

111.7-534

91.7-850

10.22

110.50-4,200

KZA? – sludge(decarbonation)

Data setsRange

21.0-10.0

60.03-3.0

55.0-50.0

55.0-66.0

80.01-0.50

62.0-50.0

65.0-60.0

20.01-0.10

69.1-1,130

Water Supply

Watertreatment(industrial use)


Data setsRange

11.0-10.0

0ND

0ND

11.0-100

0ND

11.0-20.0

11.0-100

0ND

11.0-130


1900.99-93.0

2280.02-82.0

2482.0-180

2480.5-

1,700

1610.03-4.9

2480.9-110

2472.5-4,100

0ND

2485.0-5,200




11.5-20.0

50.40-6.5

54.0-45.0

58.0-70.0

4<0.05-

1.3

56.0-45.0

55.0-300

0ND

540.0-700


Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

Note: ND = No Data


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

344

Table F15 Organic Contaminants of Examined Mineral Wastes and By-Products (Gonser et al., 1999)

Organic ContaminantsSector Branch Waste/By-Product

Waste/By-ProductDetail PCB

(Sum as perDIN 51 527)µg kg-1 DS

PAH(Sum as per

US-EPA)mg kg-1 DS

Benzo-(a)-pyrenemg kg-1 DS

PCDD/F(I-TE)

ng kg-1 DS

AOXmg kg-1 DS

Soda production Slake limeresidues

Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

22.6-<5.8

ChemicalIndustry

Acetyleneproduction


0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

2<0.02

Fly ash Brown coal Data setsRange

00

20.04-0.29

2<0.001

00

00

Coal fired powerstations

TAV – ash (gastreatment)

Coal Data setsRange

1<30

1<1.75

1<0.05

0ND

0ND


0ND

21.49-1.60

20.003-0.02

91.00-13.8

0ND

Residualwood

Data setsRange

0ND

118.7

10.03

11.73

0ND



0ND

0ND

0ND

24-11

0ND

EnergyProduction


Fly ash Waste wood Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

0ND

21,000-3,600

0ND


Mineralprocessing

Rock grindingsludge

Data setsRange

115.7

1157

0ND

0ND

0ND

Foundry wastesand

Data setsRange

0ND

20.07-14.3

2<0.001-0.14

0ND

0ND

MetalProductionandProcessing

Foundries

Magnesium oxidedust

Data setsRange

0ND

10.24

10.005

0ND

0ND

Ash from papersludge incineration

Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

1<30-690

PaperProduction

Ash from de-inkingsludge incineration

Data setsRange

1<5

0ND

1<0.05

0ND

0ND



0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

36-27


0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

119

Water Supply Drinking watertreatment

Flocculationsludge

Data setsRange

0ND

0ND

0ND

0ND

579-1,860


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

345

Organic ContaminantsSector Branch Waste/By-Product

Waste/By-ProductDetail PCB

(Sum as perDIN 51 527)µg kg-1 DS

PAH(Sum as per

US-EPA)mg kg-1 DS

Benzo-(a)-pyrenemg kg-1 DS

PCDD/F(I-TE)

ng kg-1 DS

AOXmg kg-1 DS




299<0.6-1,200

0ND

114<0.01-4.4

190.8-23

160

Note: ND = no data


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

346

Table F16 Qualitative Evaluation of Heavy Metal Contents of Mineral Wastes and By-Products Used in Agriculture, onthe Basis of Maximum Concentrations Found (Gonser et al., 1999)

Heavy MetalsSector Branch Waste/By-Product 1)

Cd Cr Cu Hg Ni Pb ZnTitanium dioxideproduction

Iron-II-sulfate ++ ++ ++ ++ ND ++ ND

Capro-lactam production Ammonium sulfate ND ++ ++ + ++ ++ NDSoda production Slake lime residues ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++

Chemical Industry

Lime nitrogen conversion Lime residues ++ ND ++ ++ ND ++ ++Power Stations:- Brown coal Brown coal briquetting fly

ash++ ++ ND + ND ++ ++

- Brown coal Fluidised bed - fly ash ++ ++ ++ ND ++ ++ ++- Coal TAV – ash (gas treatment) 0 ++ 0 0 0 0 +- Coal/Brown coal REA – gypsum (gas

treatment)++ ++ ++ 0 ++ ++ ++

Bio-mass incineration(forest wood)

Grate/furnace bottom ash - 0 - ++ 0 + 0

Energy Production

Bio-mass incineration(residual wood)

Grate/furnace bottom ash - 0 - ++ - - 0

Mineral extraction Rock powder (lime stone) 0 + 0 0 + 0 +Mineral processing Rock grinding sludge 0 ND ND 0 ND ND --


Ceramics Adsorber lime 0 + ++ 0 ++ ++ ++Iron production Foundry lime ++ 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ ++

Converter lime/ ’Thomas’lime

++ -- ++ ++ ++ ++ ++Steel production

‘Thomas’ phosphate 0 -- 0 ++ 0 + +

Metal Production andProcessing

Foundries Furnace slag ND - 0 ND 0 ++ 0UndergroundConstruction

Bentonite + 0 0 0 0 0 0


Fire extinguisher powderresidues

0 ++ + ++ ++ ++ ++

Decarbonation sludge 0 ++ ++ 0 +2) ++ 0Fe/Mn sludge -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 0

Drinking water treatment

Flocculation sludge -- 0 0 ++ -- 0 -

Water Supply


KZA – sludge(decarbonation)

0 + + + 0 + 0


River water Dredging spoils/Sediments -- 0 -- 0 0 -- --

Lake water Dredging spoils/Sediments 0 ++ + 0 + 0 0

Limits Bio-Waste Ordinance (BioAbfV) 1.5 100 100 1 50 150 400Sewage Sludge Ordinance (AbfKlärV) 10 900 800 8 200 900 2500

Evaluation Scheme


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

347

++ Below limit of BioAbfV by factor of 2+ Below limit of BioAbfV0 Value between limits of BioAbfV and AbfKlärVExceeding limit of AbfKlärV-- Exceeding limit of AbfKlärV by factor of 21) Wastes/by-products which are used on agricultural land, but for which no heavy metal analyses are available, are not listed in this table2) Nickel limit of AbfKlärV clearly exceeded in one case


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

348


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

349

F4 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Waste Products from Animal Farming (Liquid Manure/Slurry)

As set out previously, the production of animal waste in Germany amounts to about200 million tonnes, containing over one million tonnes of nitrogen. Whilst there is considerablebenefit in using these products as fertilisers, there are environmental problems associatedwith it, such as excessive nitrogen input to land and the risk of contamination of water sources(groundwater and surface waters). In addition, there are hygienic and odour problems, andemissions of ammonia, nitrogen oxides and methane into the atmosphere. Intensive animalfarming practice has led to the concentration of high volumes of waste that, in order to complywith fertiliser regulations, cannot all be utilised near the sites of production (excessproduction).

The Federal Authorities (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung) funded an extensiveresearch programme, comprising 29 projects, between 1990 and 1997. The aim was toinvestigate potential problems associated with farm waste and to offer solutions.

This included investigations of environmental problems, such as excessive nitrogen(nitrate/nitrite) input to groundwater and surface waters, and emissions into the atmosphere(ammonia, N2O and methane). Treatment, storage and distribution were also investigated, inparticular, the aim was to develop technologies for producing manageable nutrientconcentrates (easy storage, transport and application), with a residual effluent which could bedisposed of via sewerage. Methods of animal waste minimisation, such as high protein feeds,were also examined (Schießl and Schwab, 2000, Döhler et al., 1999).

A summary of the findings and overall assessment is provided below.

Apart from the issues already mentioned above, a need for greater nitrogen efficiency(currently at only about 26% in animal production in Germany – Isermann, 1994, quoted inDöhler et al., 1999) and also energy efficiency were identified. The main problem lay inexcess animal waste production (excess nutrient content) and the associated costs oftreatment and transport.

Tables F17 and F18 summarise the overall findings, in terms of potential environmentalimprovements and the cost associated with it. Table F17 relates to animal holdings which arecompatible with the available surface area, whereas Table F18 relates to excess waste(nutrient) production.

The evaluation of scenario 1 (covered storage, land application with low emission measures)in Table F17 relates to the application of liquid manure without low emission measures, whilstscenarios 2 (with separation, i.e. use of a separator, followed by separate storage andapplication of solid manure) and 3 (with bio-gas production) are evaluated against scenario 1.As shown in the table, an overall positive environmental effect can be achieved with bio-gasproduction, although this leads to an increase in ammonia emissions; the costs remainunchanged.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

350

Table F17 Evaluation of the environmental compatibility of liquid manure treatmentand land application with animal holdings compatible with the availablesurface area (Döhler et al., 1999)

1 2 3Scenario

Covered storage,low emissionapplication

As 1, withseparation

As 1, with bio-gasinstallation

Primary energybalance

No effect - +++

NH3 emission Very good - -

N2O emission No effect + ++

CH4 emission No effect + ++

Odour emission Good + +

Hygiene No effect 0 +

Total Good 0 +

Costs Slight excess costs - 0

Notes: Evaluation of scenario 1 compared with application without low emission measures;Evaluation of scenarios 2 and 3 compared with scenario 1:+ improvement- negative effect0 no effect

Table F18 Evaluation of the environmental compatibility of liquid manure treatmentand land application with animal holdings producing excess nutrient(+20% N and P) (Döhler et al., 1999)

4 5 6 7 4B 5B 6BScenario

Ad-justed

feeding

Separation&

composting

‘Export’of excessnutrient

Central-ised

treatment

As 4,with

bio-gas

As 5,with

bio-gas

As 6,with

bio-gas

Primaryenergybalance

+ - - - ++ ++++ +++ ++++

NH3

emission++ 0 + + + - 0

N2Oemission

++ ++ + + +++ +++ +++

CH4

emission+ 0 0 0 ++ ++ ++


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

351

4 5 6 7 4B 5B 6BScenario

Ad-justed

feeding

Separation&

composting

‘Export’of excessnutrient

Central-ised

treatment

As 4,with

bio-gas

As 5,with

bio-gas

As 6,with

bio-gas

Odouremission

0 + 0 0 ++ ++ ++

Hygiene 0 0 - 0 + + 0

Total + 0 0 (-) 0 (+) +++ + ++

Costs 0 - - - - - 0 - - -

Notes: + improvement- negative effect0 no effect

The evaluation of the scenarios involving excess nutrient production (Table F18) was carriedout on the basis that the total amount of liquid manure would be utilised on site, despite theexcess nutrient content.

The best solution to the excess nutrient problem is clearly the optimisation of feeding, whichresults not only in reduced nutrient input, but also to reduced emissions of ammonia, nitrousoxides and methane, though no change in odour emissions and hygiene (scenario 4). Thiscan be achieved without additional costs.

Scenarios 5 (separation and composting), 6 (export of excess nutrient) and 7 (centralisedtreatment) bring no significant overall environmental improvements, whilst incurring increasedcosts.

Significant environmental improvements can be achieved through the combination ofscenarios 4, 5 and 6 with bio-gas production (scenarios 4B, 5B, 6B); in the case of 4B(optimised feeding, combined with bio-gas production) without additional costs. Theeconomics of all the latter scenarios will be greatly improved, if the investment costs of thebio-gas installations can be reduced in future; this would then open the way to additionalincome to farmers from bio-gas production.

Overall, it was concluded that the state-of-the-art, with respect to the production, storage,treatment and application of farm slurry was well developed. Table F19 provides a summaryof the minimisation of environmental impacts, which can be achieved by applying state-of-the-art methods.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

352

Table F19 Assessment of the possibilities for minimising environmental impactsfrom farm wastes (Döhler et al., 1999)

Criteria Feeding Storage Treatment1)

Treat-ment 2)

Transportand

applicationon land

State-of-the-arttechnology/knowledge

++ ++ + + +

Potential contribution toenvironmental impact minimisation

++ + + 0 +

Cost/benefit effect ++ +0 + - - +

State of technology/knowledgetransfer

0- +0 0 - - - -

Notes: 1) Treatment to improve liquid manure properties, particularly fermentation2) Treatment to separate nutrients (partial or total clean-up)++ very good; + good; 0 satisfactory; - bad; - - very bad

The main conclusion from this work was that there was a considerable body of knowledge,which was poorly implemented at farm level. If current state-of-the-art were to be implementedwidely, the major environmental impacts could be reduced significantly. In this respect, it wasrecommended that the priority should focus on increased numbers and better advisory bodiesto help farmers put in practice the current knowledge (Döhler et al., 1999).

The example of groundwater protection zones and the advisory bodies concerned with theirimplementation and liaison with farmers was cited as a positive example of environmentalachievements without compromising farmers’ income.

Decision Aids for Farmers and Advisory Bodies

Liquid manure application

An expert system (GUELLEX) has been developed for use by farmers and advisory bodies;this is a scientifically based mass balance and decision aid system, concerningenvironmentally acceptable and sustainable utilisation of liquid farm manure (Engel et al.,1997, cited in Döhler et al., 1999).

Database on Organic and Mineral Wastes and Fertilisers

This waste database (KTBL, 2000) has already been described earlier. It provides aclassification system of waste materials for re-use on land, qualitative data for a large numberof waste types (although there are still many gaps in the available information), details aboutthe potential application of wastes on land, including information about relevant legislation,physical properties and appropriate methods of application.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

353

The aim of the database is to provide a decision aid for producers and users of wastematerials, as well as those involved in waste processing and distribution, and advisory bodiesengaged in assisting farmers.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

354


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

355

REFERENCES

Laws

BBoSchG (1998) Bundes-Bodenschutzgesetz (Federal Soil Protection Law) 17.3.1998,Bundes-Gesetz-Blatt (BGBl.), I, 502, 1998.

DMG (1977) Düngemittelgesetz (Fertiliser Law) 15.11.1977, BGBl. I, 2134, amended throughLaws of 12.07.1989, BGBl. I, 1435, and 27.9.1994, BGBl. I, 2705.

KrW-/AbfG (1994) Kreislaufwirtschafts- und Abfallgesetz (Waste Avoidance, Recycling andDisposal Law) 27.9.1994, BGBl. I, 2705 (last amended 1998).

Ordinances

AbfKlärV (1992) Klärschlammverordnung (Wastewater Treatment Sludge Ordinance) 1992,Bundes-Gesetz-Blatt (BGBl.) I, 912, 1992.

BioAbfV (1998) Bioabfallverordnung (Bio-Waste Ordinance) 21.9.1998, BGBl. I, 2955.

Bundes-Bodenschutz- und Altlastenverordnung (1999) (Federal Soil Protection andContaminated Soil Ordinance) 18.6.1999, Bundes-Anzeiger, 161a, 28.8.1999.

DüMV (1991) Düngemittelverordnung (Fertiliser Ordinance) 9.7.1991, BGBl. III, 7820-6, 1991.

EAKV (1996) Verordnung zur Einführung des Europäischen Abfallkatalogs (EAK Ordinance)(Ordinance to transpose the European Waste Catalogue) 13.9.1996, BGBl. I, 1428.

Other regulations and guidelines

EU (1998) Commission Decision establishing the ecological criteria for the award of theCommunity eco-label to soil improvers. EU Official Journal, L 219, 7.8.1998.

LAGA (1997) Definition und Abgrenzung von Abfallverwertung und Abfallbeseitigung sowievon Abfall und Produkt nach dem Kreislaufwirtschafts- und Abfallgesetz (KrW-/AbfG)(Definition and distinction of ‘waste recycling’ and ‘waste disposal’, as well as ‘waste’ and‘product’ according to the Waste Avoidance, Recycling and Disposal Law), Stand:17/18.03.1997 von der LAGA (Länderarbeitsgemeinschaft Abfall) beschlossene Fassung.

LAGA (1995) Anforderungen an die stoffliche Verwertung von mineralischenReststoffen/Abfällen – Technische Regeln (Technical Regulation: Requirements for thephysical recycling of mineral residues/wastes). Mitteilungen der LänderarbeitsgemeinschaftAbfall (LAGA) 20, Stand 5. September 1995, Erich Schmidt Verlag, Berlin.

UVPG (1990) Allgemeine Verwaltungsvorschrift zur Ausführung des Gesetzes über dieUmweltverträglichkeitsprüfung (Administrative regulations concerning the implementation ofthe Environmental Impact Assessment) 12.02.1990, Bundes-Gesetz-Blatt (BGBl.) I, 205, lastamended 17.5.1994, BGBl. I, 3486.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

356

Other references

Anon (2000) Datenbank organische und mineralische Abfälle/Reststoffe – Entscheidungshilfefür die Einordnung von Abfällen zur Verwertung bzw. zur Beseitigung (Database organic andmineral by-products/wastes – decision aid for the classification of wastes for re-use ordisposal), Umwelt, 3, 140-141.

Bachmann, G., Bannick, C.G., Giese, E., Glante, F., Kiene, A., Konitzka, R., Rück, F.,Schmitd, S., Terytze, K., and Borries, D. (1997) Fachliche Eckpunkte zur Ableitung vonBodenwerten im Rahmen des Bundes-Bodenschutzgesetzes (Scientific basis for thederivation of soil values in the context of the Federal Soil Law); in: Handbuch Bodenschutz,Kz. 3500, Lfg. IX/97.

Bannick, C.G., Bachmann, G., and Dreher, P. (1998) Soil Values for the application of organicwaste to agricultural land and the recycling of mineral waste, Land Contamination andReclamation, 6,2, 103-106.

Döhler, H. (1998) Recycling organic solids in Agriculture: quantities, restraints preventingrecycling, application techniques. EU Concerted Action: CT97 – 3779, Recycling OrganicSolids in Agriculture (ROSA), Meeting 1, 24-25 September 1998, JTI Swedish Institute ofAgricultural Engineering, Papers compiled by Cumby and Scotford, Sisoe Research Institute,December 1998.

Döhler, H., Schießl, K., Schwab, M., and Kuhn, E. (1999) UmweltverträglicheGülleaufbereitung und –verwertung (Environmentally acceptable treatment and use of liquidmanure), BMBF-Förderschwerpunkt. Kuratorium für Technik und Bauwesen in derLandwirtschaft e.V., Darmstadt, KTBL-Schriften-Vertrieb im Landwirtschaftsverlag, GmbH,Münster-Hiltrup, Germany.

Engel, T., Bücken, S., Sonntag, M., Reiner, L. (1997) GUELLEX – Ein Bilanzierungs- undEntscheidungssystem zum umweltschonenden inner- und überbetrieblichen Gülleeinsatz (Amass balance and decision aid for environmentally acceptable on-site and off-site utilisation ofliquid farm manure). Abschlussbericht (final project report), Lehreinheit für Ackerbau undInformatik (Agriculture and Information Technology Department), TU (Technical University)Munich.

Gonser, J., Nolting, B., Meister, A., Lorenz-Meyer, V., Arzt, F., Lichtenvort, K., and Zwisele, B.(1999) Bundesweite Erhebung von mineralischen Abfällen und Nebenprodukten nach Art,Menge und Zusammensetzung, die pflanzenbaulich (vor allem in der Landwirtschaft)verwendet werden (National Collation of mineral wastes and by-products which are used forplant production purposes (particularly in agriculture), according to type, amount andcomposition) Part I: Final report and Part II: Annex. Research Report 296 31 533, UBA-FB 99-121, Umweltbundesamt, Berlin.

Isermann, K. (1994) Ammoniak-Emissionen der Landwirtschaft, ihre Auswirkungen auf dieUmwelt und ursachenorientierte Lösungsansätze sowie Lösungsaussichten zur hinreichendenMinderung (Ammonia emission from agriculture, its effect on the environment, and possiblesolutions in relation to its cause and effective reduction). In: Enquete-Kommission desDeutschen Bundestages (eds.), Studienprogramm Band 1: Landwirtschaft, Teilband 1, StudieE. Bonn, Economica Verlag.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

357

KTBL (2000) ‘Datenbank Organische/mineralische Abfälle und Wirtschaftsdünger (Databaseorganic and mineral wastes and fertilisers). KTBL, VDLUFA and GütegemeinschaftBodenverbesserung, CD-ROM Version 1. Kuratorium für Technik und Bauwesen in derLandwirtschaft (KTBL) e.V., Darmstadt, Germany.

Schießl, K., and Schwab, M. (2000) Forschung zeigt Flops und Chancen (Researchdemonstrates pit-falls and opportunities), Umweltmagazin, April 2000, 38-39.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

358

CONTACTS

Umweltbundesamt (Federal Environment Agency), Berlin

Dr H Eckel, Kuratorium für Technik und Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft (KTBL) e.V.,Darmstadt, Germany (KTBL), Darmstadt


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

359

APPENDIX G GREECE

SUMMARY

There is no legislation specific to the recycling of organic residues to land except for sewagesludge.

In general, there is little intensive livestock rearing in Greece except in the area aroundAthens. The estimated quantities of wastes produced by farm animals amount to 40.5 milliontonnes on a fresh weight basis equivalent to 7 million tonnes of dry solids. Poultry manure isthe main waste systematically converted to compost of high market value prior to recycling toland.

The main relevant industrial sectors in Greece are food and drink and textile sectors. Therewas no information available on the waste arising and disposal outlets. It was reported thatthe disposal of olive oil wastewater is of concern in Greece. Research has been carried out onco-composting of olive mill wastewater, olive press cake and olive tree leaves for future re-usein agriculture.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

360


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

361

G1 LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

Control on farm animal waste landspreading

There is no legislation on the control of animal waste spread to land. Greece has, however, tocomply with the EU Nitrates Directive for the protection of waters from agricultural sources.The Directive requires Member States to designate vulnerable zones within which code ofgood agricultural practices applies and nitrogen applications are restricted.


There is no legislation specific to the recycling of organic residues to land except for sewagesludge which is regulated by Ministerial Decision No 80568/4225/641/B/7-8-1991. TheDecision integrates the limit values specified in the EC Sludge Directive 86/278 for heavymetal level in sludge and maximum application rate. Sewage sludge may be used inagriculture or for landscape remediation /restoration of degraded areas.

It is reported that from measurements taken across municipal treatment plants seem toindicate that sewage sludge has a low toxicity.

There is a Joint Ministerial Decision (JMD 114218/1016/17-11-1997) that sets all the technicalspecifications for the management programs of solid waste. Management programs includethe collection, transportation, treatment and disposal of solid waste.

The JMD mentioned above is accompanied with JMD 113944/1016/17-11-1997 which is theNational Planning of solid waste (General Directions of solid waste management Policy).

Together they contain all the technical specifications and the general directions for the designand management of programs of solid waste.

There is also a new JMD 14312/1302/2000, which sets the means and actions for theimplementation of the National Planning of solid waste.

In the above laws, there exist the technical specifications for the construction and operation ofmechanical recycling plants. Also there are the qualitative specifications (pH, maximum heavymetals content, moisture, etc) of the compost produced in mechanical recycling plants.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

362


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

363

G2 QUANTITIES OF WASTE RECYCLED TO LAND

The recycling of organic waste in agriculture is not very well developed in Greece. Althoughthe quantities of organic residues from the agriculture sector and from municipal wastecollection are increasing, their recycling is not carried out in any controlled manner.

Farm animal waste

In general, there is little intensive livestock rearing in Greece except in the area aroundAthens. Overall there are only 600 farms with more than 300 cattle and 100 farms with morethan 1000 pigs (WRc and Ecotec 1994). The estimated quantities of wastes produced by farmanimals (Table G1), based on the latest figures on livestock numbers provided from Eurostat(1999-2000) and an average volume produced per head (Table G2), amount to 40.5 milliontonnes on a fresh weight basis. This includes farm yard manure and manure from grazinganimals. The quantity of manure in Greece reported by Eurostat in 1995 amounted to 7 milliontonnes (dry weight).

Poultry manure is the main waste systematically converted to compost of high market valueprior to recycling to land. In the north of Greece, there are cases of cow manure compostedand sold as organic fertiliser in the local market (Georgakakis 1999). Research has beencarried out on recycling of farm animal waste to agriculture at the Agricultural University ofAthens, looking at the beneficial effects of adding cattle manure to crops compared withchemical fertilisers and production of good quality compost from pig and poultry manure(Georgakakis 1999).

It was reported that there was a lot of concern in Greece for the disposal of sheep-goatmanure (Georgakakis 1999).

Table G1 Quantities of animal wastes produced in Greece

Animal type Quantity(x103 tonnes /annum)1

Cattle 6 546

Pig 1 580

Poultry ?

Sheep 30 387

Horse 2 007

Total 40 520 Note:

1 fresh weight basis


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

364

Table G2 Number of livestock and manure production in Greece

Animal type Number1

(x103)Yield

(l per week andper animal)

Total(x103 t per

annum)

Cattle

• Less than 1 year 156 80 649

• 1<<2 years 92 140 670

• Male/heifer more than 2years

37 250 481

• Dairy cow more than 2 years 168 315 2 752

• Other cow more than 2years

137 280 1 995

Pig

• Piglets less than 20 kg 230 15 179

• Pigs 20 kg << 50 kg 213 30 332

• Fattening pigs more than 50kg

336 30 524

• Breeding pigs- boar 7 60 22

• Covered sow 71 100 369

• Sow not covered 49 60 153

Poultry ? 1.1 ?

Sheep/goat 14,334 50/25 30 387

Horse/mules 2002 193 2 007Note:

1 Eurostat 1999-20002 OECD 1995

Industrial waste

The main relevant industrial sectors in Greece are food and drink and textile sectors. Therewas no information available on the waste arising and disposal outlets. Food processingwaste is recycled to agriculture.

It was reported that the disposal of olive oil wastewater is of concern in Greece. Research hasbeen carried out on co-composting of olive mill wastewater, olive press cake and olive treeleaves for future re-use in agriculture (Georgakakis 1999).

There are a few composting plants which treat primarily municipal solid waste and sewagesludge. The compost produced in the above facilities is used as fertiliser in the agriculturalsector.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

365

Currently in Greece we have the following waste facilities:

1. Composting plants: There are two plants (one in Kalamata and one pilot in Athens),which receive organic waste (gardening waste, etc) as well as sludge from wastewatertreatment plants, to produce compost.

2. Mechanical recycling and composting plants: There are two plants in Athens (oneunder construction) and one in Thessaloniki (under construction) which will receivemixed municipal solid waste, separate and recycle aluminum, separate organic matterto produce compost and produce RDF from plastics and paper.

The total amount of sewage sludge produced in Greece is 58,993 tds per year from 138municipal treatment plants. The percentage of the sludge recycled to agriculture is not known.It is reported that it should amount to around 20% while landfilling is the principal disposalroute. Dewatered sewage sludge with 30% dry solids and organic matter from municipal solidwaste may be used together to produce compost for use in agriculture.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

366


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

367

G3 PROPERTIES OF WASTE SPREAD ON LAND

Farm waste

No information was provided on the quality of animal manure as produced in Greece.

Industrial waste

No information was provided on the quality of industrial waste as produced in Greece.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

368


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

369

REFERENCE

Georgakakis D 1999. A research review in the field of recycling organic solids in agriculture inGreece. In: Proceedings of 2 meeting of ROSA, 25-26 February 1999.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

370


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

371

APPENDIX H IRELAND

SUMMARY

Over four million tonnes dry solids of non-hazardous waste are recycled to agriculture inIreland each year. This amount includes 3.9 million tds of animal waste and 4,000 tonnes ofsewage sludge, the rest arising from industrial processes, water works sludge and spentmushroom compost.

Until this point landfill was the principal disposal route for non-hazardous sludges. Due toincreasing landfill costs and pressures imposed by the Landfill Directive and IPPC legislation itis likely that the volume of sludge recycled to land will increase. In addition, there is adecreasing landfill capacity and difficulty in establishing new sites because of planning andpublic opposition. With legislation and economics as the main drivers, industry and localauthorities are now seeking more environmentally sustainable alternatives. In some regionsthese solutions are being sought in the form of centralised integrated sludge managementschemes.

There are currently no formal legal controls on the landspreading of waste other than sewagesludge. However, this is likely to change with the implementation of IPPC and other possiblegovernment initiatives to strengthen current waste law. Once fully implemented, the IntegratedPollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) directive (EC 96/61/EC) will imposes some control onthe sludge producing industries under their remit (such as intensive pig and poultry units) byrequiring nutrient management plans with information on sludge quality and application rates.Holders of IPPC licences are already obliged to produce an annual environmental reportincluding information on waste spreading operations.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

372


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

373

H1 LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK


Under Section 51 of the Waste Management Act 1996 as amended by 1998 Regulations (SI1998/146), agricultural wastes recycled to land are exempt from licensing. Local Authoritieshave little or no control over the spreading of cattle or other livestock slurries unless theactivity has caused pollution of controlled waters. Some local authorities license spreadingoperators.

The Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS) has been organised by the Department ofAgriculture with the aim of encouraging environmentally friendly agricultural practices. Joiningthe scheme is voluntary, but farmers who join and observe certain rules and codes, obtain anannual grant from the government. One of the rules pertains to the spreading of slurry andincludes specifications relating to, storage requirements; permissible spreading times; housingof animals; and maximum permissible rates of application of organic nitrogen (250 kg perhectare). Under the scheme, farmers are also required to have a nutrient management planprepared for their land. This should take crop requirements into account as well as slurryarising from over-wintering of livestock.


The Waste Management Act 1996 as amended by 1998 Regulations (SI 1998/146)implements the EC Waste Framework Directive. Section 51 of the Act relates to the recoveryof sludge and agricultural wastes. Under this section, a waste licence is not required for therecovery of the sludge listed below:

• Residual sludge from a) sewage plants treating domestic or urban waste waters and fromother sewage plants treating waste waters of a composition similar to domestic and urbanwaste waters; b) septic tanks and other similar installations from the treatment of sewage;c) sewage plants other than those referred in a) and b);

• Blood of animal or poultry origin;

• Faecal matter of animal or poultry origin in the form of manure or slurry; or

• Such natural agricultural waste as may be prescribed.

The Integrated Pollution Control system and the Environmental Protection Agency have beenintroduced under the 1992 Environmental Protection Agency Act. In Ireland, relevantindustries requiring an Integrated Pollution Control (IPPC) licence include intensive pig andpoultry producers, sugar factories, pharmaceutical plants, and timber/board manufacturers.The IPPC plants are required to hold a nutrient management plan. This forms part of thelicence and is specific to the type of sludge and to the selected landspreading area. Spreadingis only permitted on land with phosphorous level of 15 mg per litre or less. Both the industryand the landowner must sign spreading agreements. Holders of IPPC licences are obliged toproduce annual environmental reports that should contain details of sludge spreadingoperations. In practice it takes some effort to obtain satisfactory reports from all licenceholders, particularly from agricultural holdings.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

374

The EPA advise that the rates of application of waste to land should be determined by:

1. The P requirement of the crop to which the sludge is being applied;

2. The maximum permissible rate of application of nitrogen under the Nitrates Directive(250 kg N per hectare); and

3. A maximum hydraulic loading of 23 cubic metres per hectare on limestone soils or50 cubic metres on other soils.

Local authorities are responsible for planning authorisation and supervision of wasteoperations in their areas including the landspreading of sludges from all other sources. Thisincludes smaller industries that do not come under the IPPC licensing threshold, smaller pigand poultry units. Some local authorities are also beginning to request sludge spreadingreports via planning authorisation. The majority of local authorities have also adopted the EPArecommendations for rate of applications.

Control on sewage sludge landspreading

Local authorities are responsible for controlling municipal sewage treatment plants. Currentlythe spreading of sewage sludge is controlled by Statutory Instrument No. 148 of 1998 (SI1998/148). A Code of Good Practice for the Use of Biosolids in Agriculture has recently beenpublished. The code contains comprehensive guidelines for the application of biosolids toagriculture, this includes revised recommendations for maximum permissible levels of PTEs.The Department of the Environment is intending to revise SI 1998/148 to take account of therecommendations of the code. It is likely that when the revision takes place it will also applylimits to applications of all sludge types used in agriculture.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

375

H2 QUANTITIES OF WASTE RECYCLED TO LAND

In 1997, the Irish Department of the Environment commissioned a project to undertake aninventory of non-hazardous sludges and livestock waste produced in Ireland. Fehily Timoney& Co (FTC) were awarded the contract in association with WRc. Questionnaires were sent tolocal authorities, industries and waste management contractors. The industries contactedwere major food industries, breweries and distilleries, dairies and co-operative societies,mushroom growers, rendering and animal slaughtering industries, pharmaceutical andchemical companies, textiles industries and manufacturers of paints, varnishes, resins, paperpulp, board and extraction and processing of minerals. The data from that study (DoE 1998)has been used (with permission from the DoE) to form the basis of the information for thisreport as this is still the most up-to-date information detained by the Irish DoE.

In 1997/98, it was estimated that the total quantity of non-hazardous waste produced inIreland was about 4.3 million tonnes of dry solids (tds) per annum (Table H 1) (DoE 1998). Ofthese nearly 4 million tds were recycled to land. The non-hazardous wastes comprise sewagesludge, water works sludge, sludge from industrial processes and sludge from the foodindustries (food-processing, animal slaughtering and rendering, mushroom production,intensive livestock rearing). Animal wastes represent the largest proportion (97%) of wasterecycled to land, while the other wastes amount to 2.6% and sewage sludge to less than 1%.

Table H1 Estimated quantities of wastes (tds/annum) produced and proportionspread annually on land in Ireland (DoE 1998)

Industrial sector Wasteproduced

Agriculture Landfill STW Other

Agriculture 3,895,433 100 %

Food and drinks (Meat, fish,vegetable, sugar, dairy, softdrink, brewery, etc)

88,851 81,840(92%)

6,604(7%)

407(1%)

Rendering and slaughtering 123,347 17,769(14%)

1,600(2%)

103,978(84%)

Basic organic chemical industry(pharmaceutical industry, etc.)

57,446 2590(5%)

51,036(88%)

114(<1%)

3,706(<7%)

Waterworks 6,197 373(<6%)

4,140(67%)

17(<1%)

1,667(26%)

Other industries 6,334 0 5,917

(93%)

417(7%)

Spent Mushroom Compost 95,400 51,516(54%)

43,884(46%)

Sewage sludge 38,290 4,174(11%)

18,722(49%)

188(<1%)

15,206(40%)

Total 4,311,298 4, 002,213 88,258 393 169,265Note: STW Municipal Sewage Treatment plant


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

376

Farm animal waste

The quantities of animal wastes calculated in 1998 DoE survey (Table H2) were quantifiedbased on average volume produced per head (Table H3) and livestock numbers providedfrom the June 1991 Census as no more recent data were not available at the time of thesurvey. The 1999 Census data are now available and have been reported in Table H4 forinformation. The cattle slurry volumes is overestimated as the total cattle number dropsapproximately by 10% during the winter months as a lot of them are slaughtered.

Large intensive poultry and pig units have to be licensed under IPPC since March 1998. Thereare around 220 pigs units and 6 poultry farms falling under the IPPC system. Waste fromintensive livestock rearing units are seasonal, especially for cattle. Animals are housed onaverage for 16 to 20 weeks. Longer housed period of up to six months occur in the colderparts of the country. Pigs and poultry are normally housed indoors all year round. Sheepmanure is also seasonal as ewes are only housed for 6 weeks during lambing. All other sheepare kept outdoors throughout the year. For the purposes of this study, the volumes of animalmanure have only been calculated for those animals that are kept indoors.

The main difficulty with agricultural waste in Ireland is the concentrated nature of the industry.About 40% of the national sow herd are confined in two of the 26 counties. In one county,poultry and mushroom production account for 47% and 12% respectively of the grossagricultural output compared with the national figures of 4 and 2% respectively.Landspreading is the favoured disposal option for manure, but where industry is soconcentrated finding land space to spread in the vicinity can prove a problem. In recent years,the practise of composting manures with straw and gypsum to make mushroom compost hasincreased in popularity. The nutrient content is a function of animal type, its diet, storageconditions, dilution with water or litter.

Table H2 Quantities of animal wastes produced in Ireland (DoE 1998)

Animal type Quantity(tonnes dry solids/annum)a

Cattle 3 436 376

Pig 153 645

Poultry (litter) 93 256

Poultry (slurry) 38 853

Sheep 167 388

Horse 5 915

Total 3 895 433 Notes:

a These figures are based on calculations made according to number of livestock for 1991 and period oftime spent in doors, the slurry from which is collected and stored for disposal.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

377

Table H3 Coefficient of waste production per livestock category (DAFF 1994)

Animal type Water/solidsratio in feed

Volume(litre week-1)

Comments

Dairy cow (560 kg) 315

Suckler cow (500 kg) 280

Beef cattle (450 kg) 250

Young cattle (250 kg) 140

Calf (140 kg) 80

Finishing pigs (58 kg) 2 to 1 20 Based on a daily intake of 1.95kg of meal/pig

2.5 to 1 27

3 to 1 34

3.5 to 1 41

4 to 1 48

Lactating sow and litter 3 to 1 97 Based on a daily intake of 5.5kg of meal/pig

3.5 to 1 115

4 to 1 135

Dry sow/boar 3.5 to 1 53 Based on a daily intake of 2.5kg of meal/pig

4 to 1 62

4.5 to 1 70

Gilt 3 to 1 44 Based on a daily intake of 2.5kg of meal/pig

Weaner 3 to 1 15 Based on a daily intake of 0.85kg of meal/pig

Lambs- finishing (25-40kg)

13

Mountain ewes (40-50 kg) 17

Lowland ewes (60-80 kg) 28

Laying hens (81 batterycaged/89 free-range)

106

Broilers (100 places, dayold to 35-49 days old)

45 Average per crop(5.5 per year)

Turkeys (100 places/dayold to 120 days old)

72 Average per crop(2 to 3 per year)

Horse (450 kg) 193


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

378

Table H4 Number of livestock in Ireland – Census 1999


Breeding cattle:

Dairy cows 1,284

Other cows 1,183.4

Dairy heifers 209.3

Other feifers 94.5

Bulls 44.5

Other cattle:

Male > 2years 800

Female > 2 years 370

Male 1-2 years 1,081.8

Female 1-2 years 678.7

Male < 1 year 954.5

Female < 1year 870.8

Sub-total 1: 7,571.3

Breeding sheep:

Ewes > 2years 3,572.4

Ewes < 2years 794.5

Rams 110.9

Other sheep: 3,520.0

Sub-total 2: 7,998

Breeding pig:

Female 188.4

Boars 4.3

Other pigs:

>20 kg and over 1,101.4

<20 kg 492.8

Sub-total 3: 1,786.9

Poultry:

Ordinary fowl 11,419.7

Other fowl 1,277.7

Sub-total 4: 12,697.4

Horses and ponies 75.5

Mules 7.3

Goats 13.5

Farmed deer 16.1


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

379

Industrial waste

In 1997, there were 308 IPPC licences on records at the EPA in Ireland. Of these, 148 wereidentified as sludge producers and were reviewed. Where insufficient information on thegeneration, treatment and disposal of sludge was contained in licence and application,companies were sent a questionnaire. Questionnaires were also sent to the 34 LocalAuthorities, which have all responded. The major agro-industries were also sent aquestionnaire. The level of response was relatively good (Table H5).

Table H5 Level of returns from the 1997 survey

Sector Number of companiescontacted

Percentage of returns

Dairies/co-ops 76 41%

Mushroom growers 115a 22 %

Food industry 40 48 %

Breweries/distillers 10 48 %

Rendering and slaughtering 12 42 %

Textile industries 19 + 9b 47 %

Pharmaceutical and chemicalindustries

72 %

Otherc 28 68 %Notes:

a This was a representative sample out of 576 mushroom growers identified from the Horticultural Census in1997

b Information on a further 9 textile industries was obtained from the IPPC licencesc Including manufacturers of paints, varnishes, resins, paper pulp, board and extraction and processing of

minerals

Food Processing

A large proportion of sludge produced from the food processing tend to be produced in smallquantities by widely separated plants at various volumes throughout the year, depending oncrop harvesting times. Dairy sludge while produced all year round decrease in volume duringthe winter months.

Food processing waste consists of solid residues from the preparation of food or drink or frombiological treatment of high-strength liquid wastes. Of the 88,851 tds of sludge producedannually, the largest proportion of this waste in Ireland is from sugar processing (65%) anddairy processing (27%). General food manufacturers, breweries and soft drink manufacturersgenerate the rest. The majority is recycled to agricultural land (92%), disposed of to landfill(7%) or reuse in animal feed or other food products (1%).

Waste from sugar processing consists of mainly waste lime and pulp residues, these arenormally landspread.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

380

Dairy processing waste can be highly variable depending on the process, however it is usuallyhighly putrescible, high in fat and oil content and high in protein materials such as albumenand casein. The dairy industry normally treats its own waste and disposes of its sludge toagriculture using private contractors. Until recently this practice was more or less unregulated.The dairy industry is now going through the IPPC process and is likely that sludge recycling toland will become more regulated and therefore more expensive.

Residues form breweries include grain husks and yeast settled out or separated from themalting and brewing processes. These wastes are mainly reused as animal feed orreprocessed for use in food or nutrient materials.

Waste streams from soft drink manufacturers are usually low in solids concentration but mayhave high sugars content. These are usually spread on agricultural land.

Animal Slaughtering

Waste from abattoirs consists of offal, blood, paunch contents, wash wastes and sludge fromdissolved air floatation equipment. All the waste has potential to be odorous and has a highBOD. Of the 123,347 tds waste produced annually, 83% is offal that is sent for rendering.Paunch contents are usually landspread. Application of blood to land is now a less commonpractice than it has been in previous years, processing into blood meal and protein for animalfeed is now more prevalent. Paunch contents that consist predominantly of partly digest feedor vegetable matter are usually landspread. The wash water from holding areas, vehicles isalso typically landspread. Abattoirs wastes are mainly sent to a rendering plant (83%),landspread in agriculture (14%), landfilled (< 2%), re-used as protein/bloodmeal (< 1%).

Industrial Biological sludges

These sludges arise from the treatment of organic wastes from chemical, pharmaceutical andbiochemical industries. Sludge components will vary considerably according to the type ofprocess from which they are produced and the waste stream characteristics. These sludgeswill not necessarily contain any human or animal pathogens, but may contain quantities ofPTE’s. These wastes are usually landfilled (88%). Only 5% is spread in agriculture. Mostchemical and pharmaceutical sludges are landfilled at present, but this is likely to changegiven the current legal and economic climate.

Industrial sludges derived from physical / chemical treatment plants

Industries often need to treat water before being able to use it in their process. Around 6,334tds are produced each year in Ireland. Lime sludges are derived from water softening andother neutralisation processes. They often contain significant quantities of metals or otherimpurities so most (93%) are landfilled. Typically sludge are dewatered to 20-35% ds beforebeing landfilled. None are recycled to agriculture.

Waterworks sludge

The largest proportion of water treatment work (WTW) sludge in Ireland is coagulant sludgewith an annual production of 6,197 tonnes dry solids. These are produced when raw water istreated with a coagulant to remove impurities. The quantities of WTW sludge are not expected


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

381

to increase, as new water supply schemes will largely come from groundwater and fromreducing leakages.

As they have little agronomic benefit these wastes are usually landfilled (67%), followingthickening and dewatering. The other outlets are discharged into controlled water (14%),storage on sites (12%), landspreading (< 6%) and discharged to sewer or tankered to sewagetreatment works (< 1%).

Spent mushroom compost (SMC)

Since the 1980’s there has been a rapid growth in the mushroom industry. The HorticulturalCrop Census in 1997 reported 577 growers with an estimated compost usage of 201,208t/annum. A production cycle is around 10-12 weeks and a single typically sized facilitygenerates approximately 18 tonnes of spent mushroom compost. Approximately 95,400 tds ofspent mushroom compost (SMC) is generated. The most variable mineral is calcium as itdepends on the rate of lime used in the casing layer.

Most SMC is landspread (54.3%), sent to quarries (18.4%), disposed of in wetland areas(13.6%), on poor land (3.8%). The waste compost has to be transported considerabledistances from the plant before landspreading to prevent spore contamination, this can be aneconomic problem to the producer. For this reason it is likely that a large portion of spentcompost is fly-tipped. There is little room for expansion of the industry so future volumes ofSMC are likely to remain the same to those given for 1997.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

382


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

383

H3 PROPERTIES OF WASTE SPREAD ON LAND

Farm waste

Typical nutrient content for animal waste is given in Table H6.

Table H6 Typical nutrient content (kg t-1) (DoE, 1998)

Animal type DM (%) N P K

Cattle 10 4 0.7 4.5

Pig 6 4 1.4 2

Dungstead manure 17 3.5 0.9 4

Farm yard manure 20 4.5 1 6

Poultry

Deep litter 60 25 9.8 13.2

Layers 30 14.5 5.4 7

Industrial waste

Industries covered under IPPC have to analyse their wastes and submit results at the time ofsubmission of application. In most cases, the waste composition will have changed and unlessit is specified in an IPPC license there is no legal obligation to supply detailed chemicalanalyses of waste to be landspread. Industries under local authority control are not required tocarry out and submit any quality results. As has been discussed in earlier sections, currentlythe major limiting element imposed on landspreading is phosphorous. However it is likely thatfuture legislation will contain restrictions on PTE’s for all landspread wastes.

Waterworks sludge

The composition of WTW sludge is variable and depends both on the treatment and source ofwater. A typical composition of coagulant water treatment sludge is given in Table H7. TheWTW sludges are typically composed of aluminium or iron hydroxide flocs (aluminium or ferricsulphate are used as coagulants) and impurities removed from the raw water. These sludgeshave a lower nutrient content than sewage sludge and some ferric sludges have a high heavymetal content. They also have less pathogens than sewage sludge.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

384

Table H7 Typical sludge analysis for sludge produced at Ballynore Eustacewaterworks

Parameter Concentration

pH 6.29

Conductivity (uScm-1) 150

Chloride (mg/l) 27

Suspended solids (mg/l) 1650

Ammonia (mg/l N) 0.263

Phosphate (mg/l) 0.024

Tot Aluminium (mg/l) 309.35

COD 27


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

385

H4 WASTE TREATMENT PROCESSES

Most sludges are produced by the private sector and are traditionally handled to localauthorities for disposal, which is usually by landfill, or discharging effluent into municipalwastewater treatment plants. More recently the introduction of the polluter pays principle hasled to rise in landfill charges and the search for alternative methods on economic grounds.

In 1993 a Strategy Study on the options for the treatment and disposal of sewage sludge inIreland identified 48 sub-centres throughout the country where sewage sludge could becollected and treated. This study was restricted to considering sewage sludge only but itrecommended the Inventory of Industrial waste. The results of the Inventory showed thatconsideration may be given to some form of integrated sludge management in those areaswhere production was concentrated. Active consideration is already being given to thedevelopment of centres of waste in the following areas:

• West Cork

• Mid Cork

• North Munster

• Kilkenny

• Monaghan

The schemes are in various stages of development. They include biogas generation, largescale composting, storage and mixing centres and waste fired power stations.

The West Cork Biogas Project, is an initiative from a community project, involving a thefarmers co-operative, local educational and enterprise groups, credit unions and many others.The project proposes a thermophillic anaerobic digestion plant situated centrally. This plantwould receive raw waste from agricultural sources (cattle and pig slurry), industrial sludges(particularly from the food industry) and municipal sewage sludges from local authoritysources. The biogas generated from the digestion process in the plant would be used togenerate electricity, which would be sold. The capital cost of the plant has been estimated atIR£3.3 million to handle 170 tonnes of waste a day.

McGill Environmental Systems Limited are an American company specialising in compostingof non-hazardous sludges. Their plant in Co. Cork is currently capable of processing 200tonnes of sludge a week. Non-hazardous and biodegradable sludges are mixed with a bulkingagent (sawdust, dinker and st. johns wort leaves) and stored in a specially designed containerwhere they undergo an accelerated composting process. The compost is all utilised locally ontillage land.

Irish Fertiliser Industries Ltd are planning to pre-treat sludges before drying and blending withthe fertiliser they manufacture.

Greenfields Environmental Limited are an agricultural contractor. They are working on projectsinvolving the storage and mixing of sludges and slurries. Storage areas are intended to besituated centrally in the region and consist of lagoons, tanks and areas for composting. Sludgewould be analysed locally and mixed to provide a uniform product to the landowner. The aimof this is to improve customer confidence and environmental and crop benefit.

There are also projects involving poultry litter fired power stations.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

386


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

387

REFERENCES

Inventory of Non-hazardous sludges in Ireland. Prepared for Department of the Environmentand Local Government by Fehily Timoney & Co. Cork

Central Statistics Office 1999. Crop and Livestock Survey, June 1999. http://www.cso.ie

DAFF 1994. Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Revised quantities of farm wastesand storage requirements, September 1994

http://www.cso.ie/


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

388

CONTACTS

Name Organisations

Marcia Dalton Fehily Timoney & C, Cork

Department of the Environment and Local Government

Central Statistics

Operators


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

389

APPENDIX I ITALY

SUMMARY

It is estimated that around 118 million tonnes (fresh weight) of animal manures are collectedannually from farms. The majority of farm waste is recycled directly to land and a smallproportion is re-used in fertiliser production or composted. In addition, it is currently estimatedthat 2.7 million tonnes of industrial wastes (fresh weight) are also recycled to land in Italy,mostly from food and drink sectors such as tomato processing and olive oil production. TheItalian legislation allows for residues from industrial processes to be recycled to agriculture aslong as they comply with the Fertiliser Act requirement. There are specific controls for oil millwater and oil cake recycled in agriculture. There is an obligation placed on the largestindustries of reporting on wastes in the MUD system. The MUD is compiled by around 7500companies which represent around 10% of the total production. The information below hasbeen cross-checked with data provided by an important landspreading operator.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

390


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

391

I1 LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK


Landspreading of farm waste is now regulated by legislation 152/1999 (D. Lgs. 152/99)implementing EC Directives 91/271/EEC and 91/676/EEC. The Act specifies criteria foridentifying vulnerable areas and also transfer responsibility to the Italian Regions.

The Italian Regions are responsible for implementing control on landspreading of farm wasteson the basis of notification rules and quality criteria while the competent Ministries willestablish technical rules. Currently the Ministries have not published the rules, however, inItalian Regions with higher animal load, Emilia-Romagna, Lombardia and Veneto (theseregions account for 60-70% of Italian livestock) landspreading of farm waste is alreadyregulated by specific regulations as presented below.

Authorisation and exemption:

The authority responsible for authorise landspreading is the Province in Veneto and Emilia-Romagna, and the Municipality in Lombardia.

Lombardia:

! Farmers with livestock which produce only manure and that with less than 1 tonne of liveweight are exempted

! Farmers with livestock with less than 80 tonnes of live weight, which produce slurry, mustreport their activities to the Municipality.

! Farmers with livestock with more than 80 tonnes of live weight, which produce slurry mustbe authorised by the authorities.

Veneto:

Farmers with livestock that produce slurry or accumulate excreta have to report to theProvince:

! Their animal units per hectare,

! Livestock location,

! Land dedicated to landspreading,

! If the farmer uses land in addition to his own, he must show the agreement to thelandowner.

Emilia-Romagna:

! Farmers with livestock that produce only manure are excluded, others must be authorised

! Farmers with livestock that produce less than 500 m3 yr-1 of slurry use a simplifiedprocedure. Those with livestock that produce more than 500 m3 yr-1 have to declare,animal housing description, and effluent treatment, and in cases when fertilisation plan iscompulsory, the fertilisation plan.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

392

Land use classification:

Land which is to be used for waste landspreading is classified on the basis of geology and soilcharacteristics and according to perceived water pollution risk from landspreading activities.On the basis of this classification, a maximum animal load is defined. If the number of animalexceeds this limit then a fertilisation plan is necessary.

In the fertilisation plan nitrogen balance is the binding parameter for approval of landspreadingactivities. To determine the amount of nitrogen available to the plant with respect to theamount supplied, the following variables are considered; the different types of nitrogenpresent in animal waste, relationship between the compounds of nitrogen present, the amountadministered, the methods and period of application, the type of crop, and the soil and theclimatic conditions. The fertilisation plan must be approved by the competent authorities.

When the farm has a fertilisation plan, the farmer must keep an up to date register of animalwaste movement. Competent authorities can check operations from the register and cancontrol quantities spread, destination and spreading date.

Lombardia:

Livestock live weight is compared to available land. Regional land is classified into four areasaccording to livestock density, geology, soil characteristics and vulnerability. If a farm has alive weight of livestock which exceeds the limit, the farmer must prepare a more detailedfertilisation plan than that necessary when the live weight is smaller.

Area Soil vulnerability and animal load Max. slurry application(t/ha of available land)

1 High vulnerability> 1,5 tonnes of live weight per available Ha

2

2 High vulnerability<1,5 tonnes of live weight per available Ha

3

3 Low vulnerability of the soil>1,5 tonnes of live weight per available Ha

3.3

4 Low vulnerability of the soil<1,5 tonnes of live weight per available Ha

3.6

Veneto:

Maximum quantities of slurry (t/ha) for the different animal types allowed to be spreadaccording to the vulnerability of the different classes of land are presented below. If the landavailable to the farmer is not sufficient for his requirements, land owned by another farmer canbe included in the authorisation. Otherwise the farmer has to prepare a fertilisation plan.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

393

Area Pigs and suckingcalf

Poultry and rabbit Others

A No slurry. Only solid excreta and manure.

B1 12 8 19

B2 6 4 9

C 24 15 30

D 35 25 40

Emilia – Romagna

The regional area is divided into ‘Not vulnerable’ and ‘Vulnerable’ area. Animal load declaredin each area can be reported in tonnes of live weight or in Kg of nitrogen corresponding to adetermined tonne of live weight.

Animal category Vulnerable area

tonnes of live weightcorresponding to

170 kg N /Ha

Vulnerable area


210 kg N /Ha *

Not vulnerable area


340 kg N /Ha

Dairy cattle 1.8 2.2 3.6

Beef cattle 1.8 2.2 3.6

Sucking cattle 1.1 1.3 2.2

Pigs 1.5 1.9 3

Battery Hens 0.9 1 1.8

Broilers 1 1.2 2

Turkey 1.1 1.4 2.2

Rabbit 0.8 1 1.6* First 4 years

If the animal load is bigger than value reported in the table above, the farmer must produce afertilisation plan. A fertilisation plan is also obligatory when livestock load is bigger than 160tonnes of live weight and is located in vulnerable area. If the area is at high risk to waterpollution, the animal load is decreased to 60 tonnes of live weight.


The decree No 22 of 5 February 1997 (decreto ronchi), and subsequent modification, controlswaste management in Italy.

Waste can be used in agriculture after compost transformation, as a fertiliser or if it arisesfrom the production of olive oil (Figure I1):


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

394

1. In the first case legislation defines compostable waste, process parameter to control andcomposting plant characteristics. Composting activity is one of the recycling operations asspecified in Decree No 22/97 (Allegato C, D. Lgs.22/97).

There are two different authorisation procedures for composting activities:

• Simplified procedure: In accordance to articles 31 and. 33 of Decree 22/97, it ispossible to start a composting activity by a simple communication to the competentauthorities. In this case, composting process, waste treated, composting planttechnology, composting plant managing must be carried out according to technicalrules specified in Decree of 02/07/1998. Compost produced in this plant must beconform to fertiliser legislation (Table I1). In this case it can be freely commercialisedaccording with the Fertiliser Act. No 748.

• Ordinary procedure: With this procedure it is possible to deviate from the technicalrules reported in Decree of 02/05/1998. Waste treated, composting plant technology,and composting plant management must be previously authorised by competentauthorities. In this plant different compost types can be produced: Compost inagreement with fertiliser law “Quality compost”, and “Compost from waste”, uses ofwhich is established during authorisation process. Rule of reference to determine theuses is guidance note from the Ministerial Committee of 27 July 1984 (Deliberazionedel Comitato Interministeriale del 07/27/1984).

2. In the second case waste that could be recycled in agriculture must comply with thequality requirements defined in Fertiliser Act No 748 of 19 October 1984 (Table I1).Wastes complying with quality requirements of “748” can be used without particularprescription.

3. There are specific controls for oil mill water and oil cake recycled in agriculture under theLaw No574 of 11/11/1996. The specific requirements are described in the text below.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

395

There are also some specific prescriptions for sugar beet waste recycled to land in the EmiliaRomagna Region.

Figure I1 Summary of Italian regulation applying to landspreading of waste

Farm waste

Specific legislation

industrialwaste

are your wastesludge ? D. Lgs 99/92

are included inrecyclable as defined in D.Lgs 22

Are in conformitywith the law? Agriculture

dumping orother destination

are also includedin compost list?

Are in conformitywith fertilizerlegislation ?

how isyour

convenience? direct use

compostAre in conformity

with fertilizerlegislation ?

particular use

yes

No

yes

No

No

yes

No

No

yes

yes

No


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

396

Control on fertiliser production

By products which can be recycled in agriculture as fertiliser must comply with the qualityrequirements which are defined in Fertiliser Act No 748 of 19 October 1984 (Table I1). Wastescomplying with quality requirements of “748” can be used without particular prescription.

Table I1 Waste for fertiliser production. [d.lgs. N.22, 05/02/97]

CER Production Waste description Nutrient content(Law n. 748)(N =organic nitrogen)

Plume and plumage 10% N

Hoofs and horns 9% N

Hoofs and horns (roasted) 9% N

Horns and nail (roasted) 9% N

Skins 5% N

Leather scraps treated with sulphuric acid 5% N

Leather (roasted) 5% N

Chrysalis 5% N

Dried blood 9% N

Blood fluid 4% at least 3.7% N

Meat meal treated with sulphuric acid 4% N

Meat meal in suspension fluid 3% al least 90% N

Epithelium 4% , C/N < 6

Fish meal 5% N, 3% P2O5

Slaughtering residue hydrolysed 3% N, 2% P2O5, 22% C org

[020202][020203]

Slaughtering

Tanning industry

Silkworm

Fishing industry

Bone meal and others fertilisers producedfrom bone residue

1% min N – 3% max N11% min P2O5 – 18% max

P2O5

Wool waste 8% N[020102][040202][040206][040101]

Tanning industry

Wool industry

Leather scraps treated with sulphuric acid 5% N[040101] Tanning industry

Leather (roasted) 5% N

Liquid distiller’s residue 1.5% N4 % K2O

10% C organic

[020702][020799][020499]

Sugar industry,wine industry,yeast industry

Dried distiller’s residue 3% N6% K2O

20% C organic


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

397

CER Production Waste description Nutrient content(Law n. 748)(N =organic nitrogen)

[020399] Oil industry Waste from seed 3% N

[020399] Oil industry Oil mill by products:

Water produced from olive mechanicalwashing without treatment and withoutaddition of substances

Fertiliser use withfertilisation plan

Refuse lime from sugar factory CaO 20%[020402] Sugar production

Lime production Lime 40% CaO+MgO8% MgO

[100903][100202]

Steel industry Residue from phosphoric pig iron 12% P2O5

[060303][020499]

Residue fromindustrialproduction asphosphoric acid

Calcium sulphate, Ferrous sulphate,Defecation gypsum

25% CaOPb<30 mg kg-1

Cd <3 mg kg-1

[060307] Demineralisationbone degreased

Phosphate 38% P2O5

[100101][100102][100103]

Olive – husk millIncineration

Ash from husk incineration and othersorganic materials

Dried manure 3% N tot, At least 2% N org25% C orgC/N < 15

Zn max 2.500 mg kg-1 s.s.Cu max 1000 mg kg-1 s.s.

Dried chicken manure Zn max 2.500 mg kg-1 s.s.Cu max 1000 mg kg-1 s.s.

[020106] Farm waste

Pig slurry dried 2,5% N2% P2O5

30% C orgZn max 2.500 mg kg-1 s.s.Cu max 1000 mg kg-1 s.s.

[020399] Olive mill waste water Law n.574, 11/11/96could be used in agriculture

with spreading plan

Control on oil mill water and oil cake land application

Landspreading of waste arising from the processing of olive is specifically regulated underLaw No 574 of 11/11/1996 on oil mill water and oil cake. The prescriptions are listed below:

Agronomic use:

Oil mill water: Oil mill water without treatments


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

398

Oil cake: Oil mill water plus stone fragments and fibrous part of the fruit can be used inagriculture and are not subject to Fertiliser Law No 748

Quantity:

Oil mill water: from traditional press at 50 m3 Ha-1yr-1 or from Centrifugation at 80 m3 Ha-1yr-1

Authorisation

Spreading operations must be notified to the mayor 30 days before.

Communication must include:

• Type of soil, Spreading system, Spreading time, hydrological condition.

• The mayor can stop spreading operations if there is a chance of damage to theenvironment.

Spreading systems:

• Distribution must be uniform and by-products must be ploughed in.

• During spreading operation run off must be avoided.

Prohibition

Spreading is forbidden, where:

• Distance is less than 300 m to the ground water draining areas.

• Distance is less than 200 m to built up areas.

• Soil is used for growing vegetables.

• Soil with a water table depth of less than 10 m.

• Soil where percolation water could reach the water table.

Storage:

• Storage period max 30 days.

• Storage must be in a water proof container.

• The mayor must be notified of storage location.

Control on landspreading of sugar beet by products

Phytosanitary prescriptions for sugar beet waste in Emilia Romagna Region are summarisedbelow:

Considering damage caused by virus BNYVV and Heterodera schachtii..

A) The sugar processing industry working in Emilia Romagna must keep soil from washingand cleaning sugar beet for at least five years in appropriate areas, or dispose of it tolandfill.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

399

B) If soil is spread on agricultural land, the farmer is obliged to not cultivate sugar beet for atleast five years. The sugar refinery must report areas where soil is spread to RegionalPhytosanitary Authorities. They also have to enclose with the communication a documentconfirming that the farmer knows to conform with point B.

Control on sewage sludge landspreading

A national Law No 99/92 (D. Lgs 99/92) implementing EC Sludge Directive 86/278/EEC anddifferent regional laws and directives regulate sludge landspreading.

Authorisation

To spread sludge in agriculture it is necessary to obtain an authorisation and to notify theauthorities of spreading operation. The administrative body responsible for the landspreadingauthorisation and authorisation procedure differ depending on the region.

The responsible persons (i.e. producer or contractor who takes care of sludge marketing andspreading) have to declare:

√ type of sludge with description of origin and place of production,√ assurance that the quality of supplied sludge is in according with all applicable

requirements,√ crop to be fertilised with sludge,√ storage characteristics and its location, and the spreading system.

Ten days before landspreading, persons previously authorised have to notify the followinginformation:

√ Sludge producer and place of production of the sludge supplied,√ Sludge chemical analysis,√ Precise identification on a map of the landspreading area,√ Soil chemical analysis,√ Crop rotation,√ Spreading date,√ Agreement between persons authorised and farmer.

Day to day control is required by different authorities depending on the region where sludgeare spread.

Monitoring and quality value

Frequency of sludge analysis depending on wastewater plant dimension.

Wastewater plant dimension Minimum number of analysis per year

> 100.000 (a.c.) 4

< 100.000 (a.c.) 2

< 5.000 (a.c.) 1


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

400

Some important differences exist in sludge limit values between regions with some regionsenforcing more stringent rules. Table I1 compares the limit values imposed at the national andregional levels. Sludge produced by food processing industries could be supplied in dosesthree times higher than the normal limit. In this case, heavy metal concentration must be fivetimes lower than specified in the sludge legislation No 99/92.

Table I2 Maximum limit values for sludge recycled to land in Italy – National andRegional limits

Parameter Law 99/92 Lombardia Veneto

DS (%)

C. Org. (%ds) Min 20 20 20

N (%ds) Min 1,5 1.5 1.5

P (%ds) Min 0,4 0.4 0.4

pH >5.5

C/N 25

Cd (mgKg-1 ds) 20 20 20

Cr (mgKg-1 ds) 750 750

Cr VI(mgKg-1 ds) 10

Hg (mgKg-1 ds) 10 10 10

Ni (mgKg-1 ds) 300 300 300

Pb (mgKg-1 ds) 750 750 750

Cu (mgKg-1 ds) 1000 1000 1000

Zn (mgKg-1 ds) 2500 2500 2500

As (mgKg-1 ds) 10

B (mgKg-1 ds) 60

Se (mgKg-1 ds) 5

Salmonella (MPN) < 103 < 103 < 103

Coliform < 103

Helminth ova Absent

Salinity (meq/100 g) 200

Mineral oil (mg/l) 10*

Surfactant (mg/l) 4*

Aromatic organic solvent (mg/l) 0.4*

Nitrogenous organic solvent (mg/l) 0.2*

Chlorinated solvent (mg/l) 2*

Chlorinated pesticide (mg/l) 0.05*

P- pesticide (mg/l) 0.1*

Note:

* only for wastewater treatment plant s with more than 10,000 pe


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

401

Register

The sludge producer is responsible to update load-unloaded register. Sludge users have toupdate land register where is possible to check.

√ Quantity supplied.√ Data of the producer.√ Time delivery and landspreading time.

Storage control

Sludge storage is permitted at wastewater plant and at the farm too. Storage featuresdepending from sludge physical properties.

Use on land

Sludge can be supplied to the crop in variable dose depending from soil characteristics.

Quantity(tds ha-1 over 3 years)

pH Conductivity(meq 100g-1)

15 6<pH<7.5 >15

7.5 <6 <15

22,5 >7,5

In Emilia-Romagna is not possible to supply more than 170 Kg N Ha-1 in the vulnerable areaand 340 Kg N/Ha in not vulnerable area.

Technical rules are also established in National and Regional law. Example:

√ Application of sludge in water saturated, flooded, frozen or snow covered ground isforbidden,

√ Soil with pH < 5 or CSC < 8 cannot be fertilised with sludge,√ To avoid contamination of forage grassland, application is forbidden five weeks before

forage harvesting or grazing,√ Sludge can be spread on land only 10 months before where vegetables, growing in

contact with soil and eaten raw, are planted.√ It is forbidden to spread sludge by irrigation systems,√ All sludge must be spread in such a way as to minimise the risk of negative effects.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

402


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

403

I2 QUANTITIES OF WASTE RECYCLED TO LAND

Farm animal waste

It is estimated that around 120 million tonnes (fresh weight) of animal manures are collectedannually from farms in Italy (Table I3). Animal wastes represent the majority of wastes spreadon land in Italy. More than 67% of farm animal waste are spread in three regions: Emilia-Romagna, Lombardia and Veneto. The quantities of farm waste have been estimated basedon numbers of animals reported for 1999 (ISTAT 1999) (Table I4) and volume of wasteproduced per head (Table I5). Most farm wastes are spread directly in agriculture while asmall part is converted in fertiliser; 3,977 tonnes of dried cattle manure and 25,313 tonnes ofdried chicken manure and pig slurry combined (Assofertilizzanti 1998). In addition, in 1997,14,810 t poultry manure were composted (Persona, 1997).

Table I3 Estimated quantities of slurry and manure produced annually by livestockin Italy (1999 basis)

Waste type Production

Volume(x 106 m3 y-1)

Quantity(x 106 tds y-1)

Cattle slurry129.1 2.9

Cattle manure279.4 19.8

Pig slurry, manure 7.7 0.4

Broiler/turkey litter 0.7 0.5

Laying hens litter 1.6 1.1

Total 118.5 24.7

Notes:1 Assuming a 10% dry matter content in cattle slurry2 Assuming a 25% dry matter content in cattle manure


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

404

Table I4 Number of livestock animal in 1999-survey (ISTAT 1999)

Class of animals Number of head(x103)

Young cattle (Less 1 year)

Calf for veal 402

Male 806

Female 977

Cattle 1<<2 year

Male 700

Female 718

Other to abattoir 165

Cattle > 2 year

Male 92

Female 3,214

Pigs

Sucking-pig < 20 kg 1,473

Pig 20 – 50 kg exempt 1,596

Fattening pig 4,337

Pig breeding 736

Poultry ?

Sheep 10,962

Horse 183

Table I5 Quantities of slurry or manure produced by cattle in Italy

Class of animals Numberof head

Slurry production Manure production

(x103) Monthly(m3/month)

Annual(x106 m3/year)

Monthly(m3/month)

Annual(x 106 m3/year)

Calf (< 1year)

For veal 420 0.9 4.6

Other 1,783 0.03 0.6 0.25 5.3

Cattle 1-2

Beef cattle 700 0.6 5

Other 883 0.1 1,1 1 10.6

Cattle > 2 3,306 0.45 17.8 1.6 63.5

Total 29.1 79.4


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

405

Industrial wastes

In Italy anyone who manages wastes, i.e. producer, transporter and recycler has to declareeach year quantities managed and their destination. The declaration is made based on amodel called “Modello unico di dichiarazione” (MUD). MUD must be presented to Chamber ofCommerce of the Province. MUD is compiled by around 7.500 companies (with more than 35employees) which account for about 10% of the total amount.

Data reported below are derived from 1999 “MUD” declaration which were supplied fromINFOCAMERE, the agency responsible for data processing. These figures concerned wasteproduced and recycled in 1998. These results are however not comprehensive as:

! some Chambers of Commerce collect data independently from INFOCAMERE

! Producers are not obliged to the MUD declaration,

! There is some evasion to declaration,

! Some kinds of waste which management is regulated by specific technical rules are notincluded in the statistics.

It is reported in MUD that about 45 million tonnes (fresh weight) of waste are produced byindustries in Italy. Around 2.7 million tonnes of industrial waste and by-product are recycled toland in Italy (Table I6). The waste materials spread on land are mainly from food and drinksectors especially tomato processing and olive oil. In addition there is a small proportion ofleather and abattoir wastes recycled to land either directly or after processing by the fertiliserindustry. A small proportion of pulp and paper waste and slag from iron and steelmanufacturing are also recycled to land. There are possibilities to use textile waste inagriculture but it is not currently carried out in Italy. Drinking water sludge and dreggings arenot recycled to land in Italy.

Table I6 Quantities of industrial waste produced and recycled (as fresh weight) inItaly as reported in 1998 MUD (INFOCAMERE, 1999)

Industrial sector Quantitiesproduced

(x103

tonne)

Recycling1

(x103 tonne)Landspreading2

(x103 tonne)Others3

(x103 tonne)

Food and drinks industry 3,726 960 1,279 1,487

Pulp and paper, panels andfurniture production

2,005 820 214 971

Leather and textile industry 583 161 6 416

Organic chemical processes 460 85 5 370

Thermal processes 5,343 3 89 5,251

Water industry 9,487 435 588* 8,464

Others 23,218 2,898 511 19,809

Total 44,822 5,362 2,692 36,768Notes:1 Recycling by composting and other biological transformation or fertiliser production2 Landspreading in agriculture or land reclamation3 Other disposal routes* Mainly sewage sludge


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

406

Rendering and slaughtering

Based on the European catalogue classification, the quantities of waste produced fromrendering plants and abattoirs as well as quantities recycled are reported in the Table I7below. ANPA estimated that around 1.5 million tonnes of wastes are produced annually byrendering plants and abattoirs (Rifiuti soggetti al D.Lgs 508). The quantities of waste reportedby the industries in MUD are smaller and amounted to around 260,000 tonnes. The greaterpart of these wastes are re-used in other industrial sectors principally the feed industry whilearound twenty percent (55,000 tonnes) are recycled to land directly or re-used by thefertilising industry. The quantities recycled to land reported by the operator REI in 1998amounted to 59,500 tonnes (Table I8).

Table I7 Quantities of waste produced by rendering and slaughtering industry andrecycled in Italy in 1998 (INFOCAMERE, 1999) (as fresh weight)

Quantity produced(Tonne y-1)

Quantities recycled to land(Tonne y-1)

CER ANPA MUD D2 R3 R10

020200 3,198 0 53 0

020201 0 51,667 7 2,400 767

020202 971,714 56,061 0 780,275 0

020203 0 19,843 1 1,722 623

020204 439,841 102,004 840 26,386 20,102

020299 1,112 27,910 0 676 128

Total 1,412,667 260,684 848 32,019 21,620Notes:

ANPA Quantities of waste estimated by ANPAMUD Quantities of waste reported by industriesCER European Waste Catalogue classificationD2 Treatment in soil environment (i.e. biodegradation of sludge in soil)R3 Recycling of organic substances by composting and other biological transformation or fertiliser productionR10 Landspreading in agriculture or land reclamation


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

407

Table I8 Quantities of waste from rendering industry recycled to land by REI in1998 (as fresh weight)

Producer Type of waste Tonne y-1 Outlet

1 Sludge 1,500 Spread on land

2 Sludge 500 Spread on land



5 Sludge + Rumen 20,000 Biogas then Composting

6 Sludge + Rumen 25,000 Spread on land + Composting

7 Sludge 4,000 Spread on land

8 Sludge + Rumen 7,000 Spread on land


Total 59,500

Vegetable Processing

The number of vegetable processing industries and their production is presented in Table I9below. The quantities of waste generated by the vegetable processing industries wereestimated by ANPA to amount to nearly 3.5 million tonnes of wastes while the quantities ofwaste reported in MUD amounted to 0.5 million tonnes. More than 40% are recycled to land(Table I10 below).

Table I9 Vegetable processing industry

Productive unit number 83 processing potato

156 juice and vegetable production

1,910 cannery industry

Product final weight 57,078 t – processing potato

771,777 t – juice and vegetable production

2,180,115 t – cannery industry


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

408

Table I10 Quantities of waste produced by vegetable industry and recycled in Italyin 1998 (INFOCAMERE, 1999) (as fresh weight)


Quantities recycled to land(Tonne y-1)

CER cat. ANPA MUD D2 R3 R10

020300 28,738 2,815 52 10,012

020301 152,424 35,097 3,256 3,082 7,789

020302 0 219 0 30 0

020303 0 16,883 0 378 957

020304 2,678,507 156,889 824 31,491 3,115

020305 509,447 90,560 5,345 23,346 10,662

020399 10,132 185,286 10,122 17,177 86,084

Total 3,350,510 513,671 22,362 75,556 118,619Notes:


The vegetable processing industry is dominated by tomato industry. Around 4.7 million tonnesof tomatoes are processed annually. The industry is concentrated in three regions;Campagna, Emilia Romagna and Puglia which together process 85% of the total production.The industries generate around 150,000 tonnes of soil, vegetable residues (skin, leaves, fruitpulp etc.) and cellulose residues (Table I11). Based on information extracted from REIdatabase which showed that, for 1.2 million of tomato processed, 24,000 tonnes of sludgewere produced and recycled to agriculture, it can be extrapolated that for the total of 4.7million tonnes of tomato processed annually, an additional 94,000 tonnes of sludge isproduced. Skin and pulp from tomato industry are generally used in the feed industry ordirectly spread in agriculture. Soil and sludges are generally spread in agriculture (ANPA,1999).


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

409

Table I11 By-products generated from tomato processing industry (as fresh weight)

Quantityprocessed(tonne yr-1)

CER cat. By product type By-productarising

By-product(tonne yr-1)

Outlet

4.700.000 020399 Soil and vegetableresidue

0.2% rawmaterial

9,400 Agriculture

020304 Pulp, skin and seed 3% rawmaterial

141,000 Feed industryand agriculture

020305 Sludge 2% rawmaterial*

94,000 Agriculture

Total 244,400Note:

* Based on figures provided by REI database reporting 24,000 tonnes of sludge produced for 1.2million tonnes of tomatoes processed

The other important sector is the olive oil industry, There are 6,350 oil press transforming3,545,000 tonne of olive annually. There are essentially two oil extraction systems,centrifugation and traditional. An important innovation in olive oil sector in Italy was theadoption of the centrifugation continuous extraction techniques. Forty percent of the oil pressuse centrifugation methods while 60% still work with traditional methods (ISMEA, 1995). Theby-products are composed of a solid fraction containing residues of pressed olives, pulp andoil which can be chemically extracted and a liquid residue called alpechin. The centrifugationsystem requires a greater amount of water which almost double the production of olive-millwastewater (Table I13). Based on figures provided by REI database (Table I14), it can beestimated that around 57% of 2.4 million tonnes of oil mill waters are treated in wastewaterplant while the rest is landspread (see outlets for the Umbria region Table I14). Oil cake istreated to extract the oil residue then exhausted oil cake is used to produce energy. In 1998, itwas reported that 500,000 tonnes of exhausted oil cake were used in this way.

Table I12 By-products generated by olive processing industry (ANPA 1999, Liberti1988, Pacifico 1989) (as fresh weight)

Olive processed(tonne yr-1)

By product By-product arising By-product(tonne yr-1)

1,418,000(centrifugation)

Oil mill water 1.1 t/t olive 1,559,800

2,127,000(traditional system)

Oil mill water 0.4 – 0.45 t/t olive 903,975

3,545,000 Olive cake 0.453 t/t olive 1,605,885


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

410

Table I13 Outlet for olive mill water in the Umbria Region (1996/97)

UMBRIA REGION Quantity(m3)

Outlet

Olive mill water 9,000 Agriculture

12,000 Wastewater plant

Ref: Valentini M., Saltalamacchia G., Torcasio G. Personal Communication.

Sugar Processing

During the last ten years, sugar beet production in Italy has varied between 10,5 to 14.7million tonnes. There are 20 operational sugar factories, 50% are located in Emilia Romagna.Wastes arising from sugar beet processing are soil from cleaning and selecting operation,lime, and organic residues such as sugar beet fragments, leaves, weeds, etc. The quantitiesare reported in Table I15 below. Based on information extracted from REI database (TableI16), the majority of lime and soil is either recycled to agriculture or in land reclamationprojects while sludge is only recycled to agriculture.

Table I14 Quantities of waste arising from sugar beet processing industry andrecycled in Italy in 1998 (INFOCAMERE, 1999) (as fresh weight)


Quantity recycled to land(Tonne y-1)


020401 2,531,624 1,479,479 0 0 561,833

020402 1,468,283 847,123 0 5 408,572

020403 56,802 52,038 3,383 3,915 40,458

020404 0 0 0 0 0

020499 0 22,811 0 1,610 106

Total 4,056,709 2,401,451 3,383 5,525 1,101,969Notes:



WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

411

Table I15 Quantities of sugar beet processing waste recycled to land by REI in 1998(as fresh weight)

Producer CER cat. Quantity produced(Tonne yr-1)

Quantity recycled(Tonne yr-1)

Agriculture Land reclamation

1 020401 1,279,611 767.767 511.844

020402 641,534 384.920 256.614

020403 46,000 46.000

020103 28,404 28.404

Total 1,995,549 1,227,091 768,458

Dairy Industry

The quantities and types of dairy waste produced and recycled are reported in the Table I17below. More than 50% of sludge is spread in agriculture or composted (see outlets in TableI18).

Table I16 Quantities of waste arising from dairy industry and recycled in Italy in1998 (INFOCAMERE, 1999) (as fresh weight)




020500 0 50,877

020501 106,899 57,336 27 253 0

020502 308,173 104,895 3,494 15,372 40,019

020599 135,049 0 4,350 80 0

Total 550,121 213,108 7,871 15,705 40,019Notes:



WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

412

Table I17 Quantities of dairy waste recycled to land by REI in 1998 (as fresh weight)

Producer Type of waste Tonne y-1 Outlet

1 Sludge 5,000 Agriculture


3 Sludge 1,000 Composting


Total 17,000

Baking and confectionery industry

The quantities and types of waste produced by baking industry are reported in the Table I19below. Very small amounts are recycled to land after composting.

Table I18 Quantities of waste arising from baking industry and recycled in Italy in1998 (INFOCAMERE, 1999) (as fresh weight)




020600 0 170 0 0 0

020601 188,492 8,661 17 104 0

020602 0 27 0 0 0

020603 104,707 10,166 0 2,879 0

020699 0 17,347 0 0 0

Total 293,199 36,371 17 2,983 0Notes:



WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

413

Brewery And Distillery

The quantities of waste produced by brewery industry are reported in the Table I20 below.Around 17% of waste arising are recycled to land or re-used in fertiliser production (seeoutlets in Table I21). A good example of the gap in the information collected by MUD is shownin the quantities of wastes included in fertiliser production as reported by REI, these are largerthan the amount reported by industries in MUD.

Table I19 Quantities of waste arising from brewery industry and recycled in Italy in1998 (INFOCAMERE, 1999) (as fresh weight)




020700 0 4,954 0 0 45

020701 0 131,233 398 969 12,279

020702 40 45,063 33 8,510 3,126

020703 0 4,708 0 9,585 0

020704 0 27,988 15 7,124 167

020705 131 67,437 75 16,722 25,941

020799 0 19,566 0 5,991 11,343

Total 170 300,949 521 48,901 52,901Notes:


Table I20 Quantities of brewery waste recycled to land by REI in 1998 (as freshweight)

Producer Waste type CEC cat Tonne y-1 Outlet

1 Sludge 020705 30,000 Agriculture




Dried distillerystillage

020702 – 020799 –020499

1,148 Fertiliser production

Liquid distillerystillage

020702 – 020799 –020499

90,000 Fertiliser production


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

414

Leather Industry

Italy is the biggest leather producer in Europe with 190 million square meters produced peryear which is equal to 1.05 million tonne of raw hide. The quantities and types of wasteproduced by leather industry are presented in Table I22 below. Based on figures reported byBenedetti et al (1997), it is estimated that a large proportion of leather wastes are recycled bythe fertiliser industry. The Assofertilizzanti (1998) reported that 38,606 tonnes of nitrogenfertiliser were produced from leather waste.

Table I21 Quantities of waste arising from leather industry and recycled in Italy in1998 (ANPA 1999, INFOCAMERE, 1999) (as fresh weight)


CER cat. ANPA MUD

040101

040102

180,000 33,601

040103

040104 40,000 56,785

040105 5,094

040106 350,000 79,183

040107 11,838

040108 92,000 117,414

040109 0 4,922

040199 102,000 67,356

Total 764,000 376,193Notes:

ANPA Quantities of waste estimated by ANPAMUD Quantities of waste reported by industries


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

415

Textile Industry

It was reported that wastes arising from textile industry were not recycled to land. Thequantities and types of waste produced by textile industry are reported in Table I23 below.

Table I22 Quantities of waste arising from textile industry and recycled in Italy in1998 (ANPA 1999)


CER cat. ANPA MUD

020103 10,490 75,558

040201

040204

040210

49,565

040205

040208

040212

118,624

040201 528

040299 34,196

060500

070102

070302

119,370 131,055

Total 332,773 206,613Notes:

ANPA Quantities of waste estimated by ANPAMUD Quantities of waste reported by industries

Pulp and paper industry

It is reported in MUD (INFOCAMERE 1999) that the quantities of waste generated by paperand pulp industry amount to around 2 million tonnes, with 10 % percent recycled to land and40% reused in fertiliser production or composted. Information on quantities of paper sludgeextracted from the REI database is presented in Table I24 below. There is a small fraction ofpaper sludge which is recycled to land after composting. A large proportion is recycled to landreclamation projects.

Table I23 Quantities of paper sludge recycled to land by REI in 1998

Producer Waste type and CER cat. Quantity(Tonne yr-1)

Outlet

1 Sludge [030399] 5.000 Agriculture


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

416


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

417

I3 PROPERTIES OF WASTE SPREAD ON LAND

Farm waste

Information on quality of animal manures in Italy is reported for nutrient in Table I26 and forheavy metals in Table I27 below.

Nutrient evaluation

Table I24 Typical dry matter and nutrient content in farm animal waste in Italy

Type of animalwaste

Dry Matter(%)

Tot N(mg kg-1 ds)

P2O5

(mg kg-1 ds)K2O

(mg kg-1 ds)

Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max

Dairy Slurry 10 16 30 48.5 17.6 27.2 29.8 48.4

Dairy FYM 20 30 12 28 3.66 15.6 1.45 40.17

Beef slurry 7 10 37.6 53 27 40 35.5 55

Pig slurry 1.5 6 40.5 135 30.9 123 32 101

Broiler litter 19 25 45 68 41.6 52 16.5 41

Heavy metal content

Table I25 Typical heavy metal content in animal manures in Italy

Type of animalwaste

Zinc(mg kg-1 ds)

Copper(mg kg-1 ds)

Min Max Min Max

Dairy slurry 150 750 40 70

Dairy FYM - - - -

Beef slurry 150 750 40 70

Pig slurry 600 1000 250 800

Broiler litter 390 490 40 130


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

418

Greenhouse gas emissions

A national emission inventory for methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and ammonia (NH3)from agriculture and animal husbandry was carried out by CRPA-ANPA (1999) between 1990and 1997. The estimated total ammonia emission for 1997 were 335 Gg y-1 of which 80%were attributed to animal husbandry. For methane, the total emissions from animals were 811Gg y-1, 78% from enteric emissions and 22% from manure management emissions.

The estimated total nitrous oxide emissions were 48.7 Gg y-1, 42% as direct emissions fromsoils, 32% as indirect emissions (after nitrogen deposition and nitrogen leaching and runoff),16% as emissions from manure management and 10% from animal grazing (Valli et al 2000).

Industrial waste

The quality information for industrial waste recycled to land as extracted from the REIdatabase is presented in the tables below for the relevant waste streams.

Rendering and slaughtering

Sludge produced from pigabattoir

Sludge produced fromcattle abattoir

PARAMETER Unit MIN MAX MEAN MIN MAX MEAN

DS % 20.29 26.15 22.28 18.1

pH 8.24 7.9 8.42 7.53

C. Org. Tot % ds 35.39 34.31 36.85 45.65

Tot Kjeldhal N % ds 3.03 1.95 3.73 4.86

P Tot. % ds 2.95 0.79 6.47 1.2

K Tot % ds 0.10 0.06 0.24 0.1

Cr mg kg-1 ds 19.21 5.29 39.31 5.89

Cd mg kg-1 ds 2.6 0.38 5.99 2.29

Ni mg kg-1 ds 18.32 4.87 29.46 3

Pb mg kg-1 ds 1.64 0 9.68 10

Cu mg kg-1 ds 222.86 129.6 373 32.66

Zn mg kg-1 ds 755.64 423.5 1426 277.5

Hg mg kg-1 ds 0.06 0 0.1 2.03

Salmonella in 1g Absent Absent Absent Absent


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

419

Vegetable Processing

Olive mill water

Centrifugation Traditional method

PARAMETER MIN MEAN MAX MIN MEAN MAX

DS % 8.3 13.6 20.15 3.5 6.5 9.6

pH 5.1 5.4 5.8 4.7 5.4 5.5

Organic compounds Tot % 7.22 12 18.3 2.6 5.2 8

Nitrogen compounds % 1.2 1.8 2.4 0.17 0.3 0.4

P2O5 Tot. % 0.14 0.21 0.23 0.03 0.06 0.07

K2O Tot % 0.47 0.71 0.81 0.11 0.19 0.24

Phenolic compounds % 1.2 1.7 2.4 0.3 0.63 0.8

Ref: Pacifico et al 1986

Sludge produced from tomato industry

PARAMETER Unit MIN MAX MEAN

DS % 13.4 28.1 21.75

pH 6.45 7.2 6.75

C. Org. Tot % ds 20 24.3 21.21

Tot Kjeldhal N % ds 2.29 2.72 2.53

P Tot. % ds 0.48 0.95 0.67

K Tot % ds 0.25 0.58 0.43

Cr mg kg-1 ds 44.3 58.7 50.33

Cd mg kg-1 ds 0.19 2.7 0.93

Ni mg kg-1 ds 34.8 52.8 44.1

Pb mg kg-1 ds 7.1 57.8 27.49

Cu mg kg-1 ds 123 200.1 172.15

Zn mg kg-1 ds 210 1438 605.19

Hg mg kg-1 ds 0.06 0.78 0.37


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

420

Sludge produced from Fruit juice industry


DS % 12.25 14.1 13.39

pH 6.17 7.42 6.94

C. Org. Tot % ds 21.03 30.1 23.74

N Tot Kjeldhal % ds 1.76 4.88 3.15

P Tot. % ds 0.52 0.97 0.69

K Tot % ds 0.26 2.01 1.16

Cr mg kg-1 ds 53 116.7 88.13

Cd mg kg-1 ds 0.59 1.53 1.22

Ni mg kg-1 ds 26 154.9 91.62

Pb mg kg-1 ds 0 72.7 44.35

Cu mg kg-1 ds 127 403.8 269.78

Zn mg kg-1 ds 192.6 570 399.65

Hg mg kg-1 ds 0.07 6.53 3.85

Tomato skin and seeds

MIN MAX MEAN

DS % 29.2

pH

C. Org. Tot % ds

N Tot Kjeldhal % ds

P Tot. % ds

K Tot % ds

Cr mg kg-1 ds <3

Cd mg kg-1 ds <0.6

Ni mg kg-1 ds <5

Pb mg kg-1 ds <4

Cu mg kg-1 ds 8

Zn mg kg-1 ds 74

Hg mg kg-1 ds <0.6


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

421

Sludge produced from potato processing industry

PARAMETER MIN MAX MEAN

DS % 11.3 23.61 15

pH 7.21 7.82 7.55

C. Org. Tot % ds 20 25 21.61

N Tot Kjeldhal % ds 3.25 5.27 4.05

P Tot. % ds 1.2 5.36 3.77

K Tot % ds 0.5 2.1 1.37

Cr mg kg-1 ds 1.2 71.4 49.21

Cd mg kg-1 ds 2 9.57 4.79

Ni mg kg-1 ds 15 50 36.66

Pb mg kg-1 ds 25 82.3 50.59

Cu mg kg-1 ds 23 150.8 84.56

Zn mg kg-1 ds 156 2190 1116.24

Hg mg kg-1 ds 0.11 1 0.38


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

422

Sugar Processing

Sludge


DS % 9.46 25.8 13.65

pH 7.06 8.25 7.43

C. Org. Tot % ds 21 36.49 26.71


P Tot. % ds 0.5 1.24 0.78

K Tot % ds 0.3 0.7 0.55

Cr mg kg-1 ds 0 52.8 22.1

Cd mg kg-1 ds 0 1.03 0.28

Ni mg kg-1 ds 7.6 28.84 20.73

Pb mg kg-1 ds 0 5.2 1.04

Cu mg kg-1 ds 3.35 74 37.95

Zn mg kg-1 ds 22.33 256.2 131.25

Hg mg kg-1 ds 0 1.6 0.58


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

423

Soil from washing and cleaning


DS %

pH 7.52 8.28 7.9

Org. Tot % 5.69 10.4 8.045

Tot Kjeldhal N % 4.27 5.67 4.97

P2O5 Tot. % 115.7 200 177.85

K2O Tot % 560 820.8 690.4

Cr mg kg-1 ds 63 64.57 63

Cd mg kg-1 ds 0.02

Ni mg kg-1 ds 48 53.68 50.84

Pb mg kg-1 ds 24 24.59 24.3

Cu mg kg-1 ds 42 65 53.5

Zn mg kg-1 ds 55 92 73.5

Lime


DS %

pH 8.39 9.35 8.87

Org. Matter Tot % 5.73 5.84 5.78

N Tot Kjeldhal % 2.77 2.94 2.85

P2O5 Tot. Mg kg-1 ds 272. 320 296.25

K2O Tot mg kg-1 ds 190 255.6 222.8

Cr mg kg-1 ds 61 66 63.5

Cd mg kg-1 ds 0.16

Ni mg kg-1 ds 40.75 54 47.37

Pb mg kg-1 ds 1.65

Cu mg kg-1 ds 63 94 78.5

Zn mg kg-1 ds 125 189 157


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

424

Dairy Industry

Sludge from milk production


DS % 13.17 30.4 21.73

pH 6.64 12.16 9.16

C. Org. Tot % ds 21 49.47 28.49


P Tot. % ds 0.47 1.76 0.97

K Tot % ds 0.04 0.72 0.27

Cr mg kg-1 ds 0 61.4 35.99

Cd mg kg-1 ds 0.04 2.59 0.68

Ni mg kg-1 ds 1.5 60 27.38

Pb mg kg-1 ds 0 147.8 19.66

Cu mg kg-1 ds 5 174.8 36.81

Zn mg kg-1 ds 22.49 486.9 141.43

Hg mg kg-1 ds 0 1.54 0.45


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

425

Baking and confectionery industry

Sludge


DS % 21.41

pH 7.37

C. Org. Tot % ds 26.44

N Tot Kjeldhal % ds 2.16

P Tot. % ds 1.46

K Tot % ds 1

Cr mg kg-1 ds 45.64

Cd mg kg-1 ds 0.43

Ni mg kg-1 ds 34.95

Pb mg kg-1 ds 60.81

Cu mg kg-1 ds 74.17

Zn mg kg-1 ds 251.21

Hg mg kg-1 ds


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

426

Brewery and distillery

Distillery waste from molasses Distillery waste from dregs

Parameter Unit Value Unit Value

pH 4.6 – 5.4

Dried matter % 57 – 60 % 30

Ash % tq 17 – 25 % s.s. 32

C. Org. Tot % tq 20 – 22 % s.s. 36

Organic matter % tq 35 – 43

N Tot 2 – 4.5 3 – 3.6

N Org % tq 1.5 – 3.6 % s.s. 2.9 – 3.5

N – NH4+ % tq 0.05 – 0.1

N – NO3- % tq 0.2 – 0.9

% s.s. 0.1

C/N 4.5 – 12 12

P2O5 % tq 0.1 – 0.2 % s.s. 0.6

K2O % tq 4 – 8 % s.s. 1.8

Ca % tq 0.1 – 0.2 % s.s. CaO 2.7

Mg % tq 0.1 – 0.5 % s.s. 0.5

Na % tq 2 – 3.5 % s.s. < 0.1

Fe mg 100 g-1 t.q. 10 – 14 mg 100 g-1 t.q. 100

Zn mg 100 g-1 t.q. 2.2 – 4.8 mg 100 g-1 t.q. 150

Cu mg 100 g-1 t.q. 1 – 3.5 mg 100 g-1 t.q. 50

Cd mg kg-1 ss 1 mg kg-1 ss < 0.02

Cr mg kg-1 ss 9 mg kg-1 ss < 0.05

Ni mg kg-1 ss 12 mg kg-1 ss 8

Pb mg kg-1 ss 34 mg kg-1 ss <5Ref: Sequi et al 1998


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

427

Sludge from distillery

PARAMETER Unit Alcohol production Wine production

DS % 11.56 21.41

pH 7.46 7.86

C. Org. Tot % ds 31.57 27.29

N Tot Kjeldhal % ds 4.15 2.78

P Tot. % ds 1.78 0.72

K Tot % ds 0.22 0.34

Cr mg kg-1 ds 50.1 44.12

Cd mg kg-1 ds 0 0.22

Ni mg kg-1 ds 35.13 24.29

Pb mg kg-1 ds 101.2 40.14

Cu mg kg-1 ds 311.1 216.67

Zn mg kg-1 ds 354 488.77

Hg mg kg-1 ds 1.42


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

428

Leather industry

Hydrolysed leather [Sample of product commercialised in Italy]

Parameter and unit

Dry matter (%) 2 11.8 1.89 1.95

Ash (%) 9.55 12.25 9.57 6.12

Organic Carbon (%) 42.5 43.22 44.73 44.8

N tot (%) 11.73 13.29 12.42 13.97

N-NO3 (mg/kg) 77 210 2290 1775

N-NH4 (mg/kg) 1220 771 1024 965

Organic matter (%) 90.45 87.75 90.43 93.88

C/N 3.62 3.25 3.6 3.21

Cr III Tot (%) 2.7 2.5 2.35 2.76

Cr VI water soluble (mg/l)tq

<0.01 <0.01 <0.0.1 <0.01

Cr water soluble (mg/l) 99 354 309 85


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

429

Textile Industry

Sludge


DS % 30.61

pH 8.02



P Tot. % ds 0.93

K Tot % ds 0.11

Cr mg kg-1 ds 55.83

Cd mg kg-1 ds 1.35

Ni mg kg-1 ds 32.7

Pb mg kg-1 ds 64.33

Cu mg kg-1 ds 589.67

Zn mg kg-1 ds 579.33

Hg mg kg-1 ds


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

430

Pulp and Paper Waste

Sludge


DS % 28.42

pH 7.42



P Tot. % ds 0.14

K Tot % ds 0.04

Cr mg kg-1 ds 4.23

Cd mg kg-1 ds 0.42

Ni mg kg-1 ds 18.33

Pb mg kg-1 ds 24.63

Cu mg kg-1 ds 13.9

Zn mg kg-1 ds 103

Hg mg kg-1 ds


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

431

I4 ECONOMIC SITUATION

The costs of disposal vary depending on regions and types of waste. Prices reported below(in EURO) are indicative of the regions with the largest waste production.

Landspreading(sludge)

Composting Land reclamation Landfill

(Tax excluded)

20.65 – 46.48Without treatment.*

30.98 – 41.31With treatment

30.98 – 46.48 7.74 – 15.5 51.6 – 87.8

Note:

* Transport included


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

432


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

433

REFERENCE

ANPA. Primo rapporto sui rifiuti speciali. 1999

Benedetti, C. Ciavatta, 1997. Alcuni aspetti relativi alla produzione ed all’impiego agronomicodei concimi a base di cuoio idrolizzato ed al cromo in essi contenuto. Agricoltura Ricerca, 167,71-84.

Di Giovacchino L., Mascolo A., Seghetti L., 1988. Sulle caratteristiche delle acque divegetazione delle olive. Nota II. Riv.It. Sost. Grasse, 65, 481 – 488.

Liberti L., 1988. I problemi della depurazione delle acque reflue da frantoi oleari. Agric eInnovaz. N. 5 – 6, 86 – 91.

Pacifico A., 1989. Il quadro tecnico – economico del problema. Agric. e Innov, n.11, 34 – 53.

Persona R., Gallo C. Il compostaggio di qualità per il recupero di biomassa organica.L’informatore agrario n.30 – 97, 42-44

Regione Piemonte. Impiego in agricoltura dei fanghi di depurazione. 1997

Sequi P. et al., 1988. I fertilizzanti organici. Cap.VIII, 139 – 148

Valentini M., Saltalamacchia G., Torcasio G. Personal Communication

Valli L, Fabbri C and Bonazzi G (2000) A National Inventory of Ammonia and Greenhousegases emissions from agriculture in Italy. In: Proceedings of 9th workshop of RAMIRANNetwork, 6-9 September 2000.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

434

CONTACT

Organisations

ARPA, Environmental protection agency

Regional authorities

Unione Industriali

Assocarta, Paper Federation

Tomato processing company


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

435

APPENDIX J GRAND DUCHY OF LUXEMBOURG

SUMMARY

In the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, recycling of waste materials, mostly farm waste, isregulated at national level. There is no specific regulation for the recycling to land of industrialby-products but it is recommended to follow the same prescriptions specified for sewagesludge and animal fertilisers. There is no information available on the amounts of industrialwastes recycled on land as it is reported that there is no such practice in Luxembourg.Industrial effluents are discharge to the municipal sewer system and treated at the sewagetreatment works.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

436


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

437

J1 LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

In the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg two administrations depending on the Ministry forEnvironment control the recycling of by-products in agriculture:

• Administration of Technical Services for Agriculture (Ministry of Environment).

• Administration of Environment – Waste Section (Ministry of Environment).

There is no official authorisation needed for the recycling of by-products in agriculture, butrecommendations specified in the regulations listed below must be followed such as soil andby-product analyses and administratives document. The main recommendations are listedbelow:

• Directive of 14th April 1990 regarding the quality and application on land of sewagesludge. These requirements are also applicable to any other residues. The major pointsare the following :

- Obligation to comply with limit values for heavy metals in sludge and soil beforespreading.

- Maximum annual dose of 3 Tonnes dry matter per hectare.

- Administrative documents :

* delivery report of sludge (control on deliveries, delivered quantities, soil and sludgeanalysis,……) to submit to the Environment Administration after each spreadingcampaign.

* sludge register (follow-up of sludge production) to submit to the EnvironmentAdministration each month.

• Directive of 20th September 1994 regarding application on land of animal fertilisers. Themajor points are the following :- No spreading of sludge and other organic matter on non-covered soils between 15th

October and 1st March.

- No more than 80 kg nitrogen per hectare with sludge (and other organic matter)between 1st September and 1st March.

- Maximum application of 170 kg nitrogen per hectare per year with the organicfertilizers.

- Farmers have to produce a spreading plan describing nitrogen uses if quantities oforganic fertilizers added amount up to 500 kg nitrogen per year.

• Directive of 8th September 1997 regarding subsidies for farmers and horticulturists. Toqualify for such subsidies, the following criteria must be met:

- No more than 2 livestock units per hectare of the total agricultural surface of theexploitation;


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

438

- No more than 2 fertilisers units per hectare of the agricultural surface used on anyparcel;

- Farmers with a quantity of organic fertilisers from animal origin up to 1,5 fertiliser unitper hectare of used agricultural surface must not use organic fertilisers from non-agricultural origin (sewage sludge or residues);

- A spreading plan of organic fertilisers must be annually established based on criteriaspecified by the Technical Service of Agriculture;

- No spreading of sludge on permanent and temporary grassland and pasture.

• Directive of 16th December 1996 regarding transportation of wastes within Luxembourgterritory. The major points are the following:

- Pre-notification of the transportation at the Waste Division of the Administration ofEnvironment through a "Notification form".

- Each transfer must be accompanied by a "Moving/transfer form".

- A contract must be signed between the notifying and the final addressee forincineration or wastes recycling.

• The re-use of industrial waste in agriculture must also comply with prescriptions regardingthe protection areas for drinking water.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

439

J2 QUANTITIES OF WASTE RECYCLED TO LAND

Industrial waste

According to the Luxembourg authorities, there is currently no direct application of industrialwastes to agriculture. For example, effluents from food and non-food industries aredischarged to sewer and treated at the municipal treatment plant. Sludge produced at theseplants is then disposed of mainly to landfill while a small proportion is recycled to agriculture.

Farm animal wastes

The detailed number of livestock registered at 1st May 2000 and their nutrient content ispresented in Table J1 below. The total amount of waste produced has also been estimatedbased on the yield coefficient described in Appendix B, this are shown in Table J2.

Table J1 Livestock number and nutrient production in livestock waste inLuxembourg (2000)

Category Number ofanimals

Nitrogen value(kg/animal)

Annual productionof nitrogen

(tonne)

Calf 0 - 6 months 32,564 30 977

Cattle 6 months – 1 an Male 8,001 30 240

Cattle 6 months – 1 an Female 13,856 30 416

Cattle 1 – 2 years Male 16,366 42.5 696

Cattle 1 – 2 years Female 30,434 42.5 1,293

Cattle > 2 years Male 4,339 68 295

Other cows > 2 years 22,455 68 1,527

Dairy cows 43,075 93.5 4,027

Suckling cows 27,338 68 1,859

Meat cows 5,211 68 354

Sub-Total 2 203,639 11,684

Sheep 0 – 1 year 3,598 13 47

Sheep 1 year and more 4,271 13 56

Goat 326 13 4

Sub-Total 3 8,195 107

Piglets < 20 kg 28,881 2.55 74

Pigs 20 – 50 kg 15,811 6.8 108

Pigs 50 – 80 kg 13,935 11 153

Pigs 80 – 110 kg 9,897 11 109

Pigs < 110 kg 2,536 11 28

Boars 280 28 8

Sows 6,309 28 177


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

440

Category Number ofanimals

Nitrogen value(kg/animal)

Annual productionof nitrogen

(tonne)

Young sows 2,501 28 70

Sub-Total 4 80,150 727

Laying hen 71,456 0.85 61

Chicken 955 0.255 0.2

Sub-Total 5 72,411 61

Horses 3,065 68 208

Total 12,787

Table J2 Estimated quantities of animal waste produced annually in Luxembourg(1999 basis)


Yield(l/week)

Total(x103 tonnes per year)

Cattle

Less than 1 year 54 80 225

Between 1< <2 years 47 140 342

More than 2 years:

Male/heifer 9 250 117

Dairy cow 43 315 704

Other cow 49 280 713

Pigs

Less than 20 kg 29 15 23

Fattening pig at least 20 kg 42 30 65

Breeding pig 8 60 25

Covered sows 0.3 100 1.5

Poultry

Broiler 0.9 0.2 0.009

Laying hens 71 1.1 4

3 193 0.03

Total 2 220


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

441

CONTACTS

Name Organisation

Mr. Aben Administration of Technical Services in Agriculture

Mrs Mathieu Administration of Environment – Waste Section


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

442


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

443

APPENDIX K NETHERLANDS

SUMMARY

Intensive livestock production in the Netherlands have given rise to considerable surpluses ofanimal manure. The problem is especially acute for pig and poultry production units withlimited or no land on which to recycle their waste. In addition, these farms are concentrated ina few areas giving rise to a regional manure surplus. There is limited information availablefrom governmental central offices on landspreading of industrial wastes. The quantities ofindustrial wastes other than livestock waste recycled on land are very limited primarily due ofthe pressure from the animal sectors.

In the Netherlands the recycling of waste materials is regulated on national and provinciallevels. A new regulation was introduced, the Mineral Accounting System (MINAS), requiringfarmers to record their nutrient balance and imposing heavy levies on excessive application ofmanure.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

444


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

445

K1 LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

In the Netherlands the rules and instructions about manure and fertilisers exist in the“Meststoffenwet” (Decree of manure and fertilisers) and an amount of national andprovincial decrees and regulations. The most important decrees are :

• Decree quality and the use of other organic fertilisers (BOOM)Decree of 30th January 1998, holding rules regarding the quality and the spread on landof other organic fertilisers. Law gazette 1998, number 86

• Decree use of animal fertilisers 1998 (BGDM)Decree of 1st December 1997, holding rules regarding the spread on land of animalfertilisers. Law gazette 1997, number 601

• Decree provincial standards “Meststoffenwet”Decree of 7th November 1997, holding rules for the implementation of loss-makingstandards, supply standards and rate of stocking standards inserted in the provincialenvironmental regulations. Law gazette 1997, number 765

• Decree administrative obligations “Meststoffenwet”Decree of 6th November 1997, holding rules regarding the administration as part of theManure decree. Law gazette 1997, number 587

• Decree stocks “Meststoffenwet”Decree of 27th October 1997, holding rules for the addition of the foundation of theregulating mineral taxes with stocks animal manure. Law gazette 1997, number 659(Commencement-Royal Decree : decree of 11th December 1997, stb 675)

• Decree Nitrogen correction “Meststoffenwet”Decree of 28th October 1997, holding rules for the addition of the foundation of theregulating mineral taxes with a correction for the nitrogen evaporation. Law gazette 1997,number 658

A new minerals policy, the Minerals Accounting System (MINAS), was introduced in 1998 topromote application of manures and inorganic fertilisers in a balanced way. The system willeventually affect all farmers. Under this system farmers are to keep records of the exactamount of fertilisers they use, the quantities that leave the farm and the quantities lost to theenvironment. The new system enables farmers to get a realistic insight into the actualamounts of nitrogen and phosphate entering and leaving the farm. A balance should beachieved in what comes in and what goes out. A certain amount of nutrient is inevitablyreleased into the environment (acceptable losses). The amounts of phosphate and nitrogenallowed to be released into the environment will progressively be lowered until the limits laiddown in the EU Nitrates Directive (a maximum 50 mg nitrate per litre of groundwater) is met(Table K1). Farmers do not have to pay any fine over the accepted mineral losses (the levyfree surplus), but farmers exceeding these limits will have to pay a heavy fine.

Fines are introduced to prevent farmer’s form exceeding the levy free surpluses. Theprogressively lower standards force farmers to take steps to avoid losses. They can do so byimproving their mineral efficiency so they need less (fertiliser, high mineral feeds) or they cantry to increase outputs (sell more manure).


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

446

Table K1 Levy free surpluses for phosphate and nitrogen per hectare, per year (kg)

Year Grassland Arableland

Set-asideland

Natural area withmanagement regime

1998-1999 Phosphate

Nitrogen

40

300

40

175

40

175

10

50

2000-2001 Phosphate

Nitrogen

35

275

35

150

35

150

10

50

2002 Phosphate

Nitrogen

30

250

30

125

30

125

10

50

Levies are distressingly high, particularly the levy imposed for exceeding the phosphate limit,so that even the expensive measure of disposing the livestock manure will pay (Table K2). Inthe evaluation planned for the year 2000 the viability of the system will be examined, notablywhere the levy free surpluses and the height of the levy are concerned.

Table K2 Levies for exceeding levy free surpluses (Dfl/kg)

Kg phosphate per ha 1998-1999 2000

0-10 2.5 5

>10 10 20

Kg nitrogen per ha

Unlimited 1.5 1.5

Initially the system is not compulsory for all producers. First it will be introduced on farms withthe highest environmental risks : those in intensive livestock production. After that the group ofparticipants will be widened until in 2002 the system will be compulsory for all farmers. Theintroduction will be staged as follows :

1. From 1998 all intensive livestock producers with more than 2,5 livestock unit per ha(LU/ha) (this includes practically all pig and poultry producers) ;

2. From 2000 all livestock producers with more than 0,5 LU/ha ;

3. From 2001 all arable farmers and other open-field producers.

The levy free surpluses must also be met on intensive dairy farms for which by 2008 amaximum density of 2,5 LU/ha will apply. But this measure will be introduced gradually: by2002 stocking densities must not exceed 3,5 LU/ha, by 2005 3,0 LU/ha.

For those who do not yet come under the compulsory scheme rules apply which sets limits tothe amount of phosphate allowed per hectare. The amount of inorganic fertiliser they can useis not regulated. Times when spreading is allowed are to be observed however and low-


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

447

emission techniques must be used. If a farmer is found to apply more than the maximumamount participation in MINAS becomes compulsory. Table K3 gives the maximum amountsof livestock manure farmers are allowed to apply under the law.

Table K3 Maximum amounts of livestock manure in kg of phosphate per ha peryear

Year Grassland Arable land Set-aside land Natural area withmanagement

regime

1998-1999 120 100 40 20

2000-2001 85 85 35 20

2002 and further 80 80 30 20

Farmers are not allowed to spread livestock manure in nature reserves, except where farmersown land in such areas, in which case they conclude management agreements with thecompetent authorities. For lands under management regimes and for other lands such asparks, gardens and soccer pitches, a maximum of 20 kg of phosphate in livestock manure perha per year applies.

Farmers are to keep records of the mineral flows on their farms and report annually to thecompetent authorities (the Levies Bureau). The reported statistics must be accompanied bysupporting documentation, such as declarations of the sale of livestock manure. From 2000farmers must also present audit statements to verify their declarations. This can easily bedone, as there is a direct link between a farm’s mineral and financial records since all mineraltransactions are coupled to financial transactions.

The Levies Bureau verifies documents :

• by comparing farm records (one farm’s sales records are another farm’s purchaserecords) ;

• by comparing farm records to suppliers’ statements ;

• by looking for the presence of audit statements ;

• by examining a farm’s livestock documents.

The General Inspection Service of the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management andFisheries also carries out scrutiny audits particularly where irregularities are found. Togetherwith the random checks carried out farms are likely to be inspected by the General InspectionService once every six years.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

448


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

449

K2 QUANTITIES OF WASTE RECYCLED TO LAND

Farm animal wastes

The quantity of nutrient applied to land following livestock waste application is presented inTable K4. It has been estimated that around 76 millions tonnes (fresh weight basis) of animalmanure were produced in the Netherlands in 1998 (Table K5). These figures have beencalculated based on coefficients reported in Table K6. The cattle and pig excrements aremainly in form of slurry (>95%) while for chicken manure, 30 to 35% are handled as slurry and65 to 70% as solid manure (Huijsmans and Derikx 2000). Due to control measures taken atfarm level, the annual manure/slurry production has decreased over the last decade. That wasmainly achieved by a stricter water management on farms (Derikx 1999).

Table K4 Quantity of nitrogen and phosphorus produced in livestock waste (1998)

Animal type Quantity of nitrogen(x106 kg)

Quantity of P2O5

(x106 kg)Quantity of K2O (x106

kg)

Cattle 363 101 429

Pig 136 54 93

Laying hen 65 32 34

Broiler 23 7 25

Total 587 194 580

Table K5 Quantity of manure (fresh weight basis) produced by livestock in 1998

Animal type Number1

(x103)Slurry

(x106 tonne)Manure

(x106 tonne)Total

(x106 tonne)

Cattle 4 097 56.2 1 57.2

Pig 13 118 15.2 - 15.2

Laying hen 42 461 0.5 1.5 2

Broiler ? 1.4 0.4 1.8

Total 73.3 2.9 76.2Note:

1 Eurostat 1999-2000


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

450

Table K6 Coefficient of production and nutrient content of animal manure in theNetherlands

Netherlands Manurevolume

Composition(kg/animal)

1998 kg/animal/year N P2O5 K2OCattle for breedingLess than 1 yearFemale 5000 44.8 10.4 56.3Male 5000 44.8 10.4 56.31-2 yearsFemale 11 500 90.2 21.7 111.8Male 11 500 105.8 29.1 137.6More than 2 yearsFemale 11 500 90.2 21.7 111.8Dairy cows 23 000 134 38.7 155.5Of which indoors 16 000 97.1 29.1 110.9Of which in pasture 7 000 36.9 9.7 44.5Bull 11 500 105.8 29.1 137.6Cattle for fattingLess than 1 yearCalf 5 000 28,7 10,2 24,8Veal 3 500 11,6 6,1 14,6Female 5 000 44,2 10,2 55,5Male 4 500 27,3 7,3 32,61 –2 yearsFemale 11 500 89,8 21,7 111,2Male 10 000 58,0 18,2 52,9More than 2 yearsFemale 11 500 89,9 21,7 111,3Male 10 000 58,0 18,2 52,9Fattening and grazing cows 15 000 111,3 27,6 134,7Sheep and goatsSheep 2 325 26,0 6,2 31,0Milking goats 1 300 22,4 7,1 23,8PigsYoung pigs up to 20 kg - - - -Porkers, 20 to 50 kg and >50 kg 1 200 13,8 4,9 9,5Gilts and boars, 20 to 50 kg 1 300 13,4 6,3 9,5Gilts, 50 kg and more (not tupped) 1 300 13,4 6,3 9,5Hoggets 5 100 29,9 14,4 19,8Boars, 50 kg and more 1 300 13,4 6,3 9,5Other boars 3 200 22,4 11,4 14,8ChickensChicks 11,0 0,57 0,23 0,30Less than 18 weeksBroiler 15,4 0,51 0,21 0,31Laying hens 34,4 0,33 0,15 0,20More than 18 weeksBroiler 25,3 1,30 0,67 0,59Laying hens 87,5 0,69 0,41 0,37Meat ducks and turkeys


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

451

Netherlands Manurevolume

Composition(kg/animal)

1998 kg/animal/year N P2O5 K2OYoung ducks 70,0 1,09 0,60 0,58Young turkeys 45,0 1,97 0,84 0,92Turkeys for the hatching eggsproductionLess than 7 months 49,4 2,52 1,49 1,16More than 7 months 78,6 3,04 1,65 1,14

Industrial waste

Due to the large amount of animal waste already recycled to land in the Netherlands and thelimited area of land available, there is a only a small amount of industrial waste recycled toland. It was not possible to gather information on the quantities of industrial waste spread onland and only a qualitative indication of which wastes are recycled to land are given below.

• Rendering and slaughtering:

almost all by-products are going back to agriculture

• Vegetables, fruits:

the greatest parts of these products are going back to their producers – spread on land

• Sugar processing:

- lime waste : agriculture and mushroom growing sector

- pulp is used in animal feed

• Dairy industry:

half of the sludge coming from water treatment is spread on land, the other half is burned.

• Soft drink:

the waste produced in this industry is mainly used for animal feed.

• Brewery and distillery:

half of the sludge coming from water treatment is spread on land, the other half is burned.

• Drinking-water:

the sludge of this industry is going to agriculture.

• Paper industry:

No recycling to agriculture.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

452


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

453

K3 PROPERTIES OF WASTE SPREAD ON LAND

Farm waste

Table K7 Average composition of slurry and manure in the Netherlands (g/kg wetproduct) (Derikx 1998)

1997-98 DM OrganicMatter

N P2O5 K2O MgO Na2O

Slurry

Cattle 90 66 4.9 1.8 6.8 1.3 0.8

Veal calves 20 15 3 1.5 2.4 - -

Sows 55 34 4.2 3 4.2 1.1 0.6

Fatteningpigs

90 60 7.2 4.2 7.2 1.8 0.9

Laying hens 145 93 10.2 7.8 6.4 2.2 0.9

Manure

Laying hens(belt)

515 374 24.1 18.8 12.7 4.9 1.5

Laying hens(bedding)

640 423 19.1 24.2 13.3 5.3 4.2

Broilers 605 508 30.5 17 22.5 6.5 3


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

454


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

455

REFERENCE

Huuijsmans JFM and Derikx PJL (1998) Solid manure in the Netherlands, mineralbookkeeping: sampling and application. In: Proceedings of ROSA first meeting at Uppsala,Sweden. CR/924/98/1731.

Derikx PJL (1999) Mineral bookkeeping, new manure legislation in the Netherlands. In:Proceedings of 8th International Conference on Management Strategies for Organic WasteUse in Agriculture, Ramiran 98. Cemagref editions.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

456

CONTACTS

Name Organisation

Mr. R. Saenen Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries

Mr Tolido Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries

Mrs. N. Fong Central Statistical Office

Mr. K. Wezer Central Statistical Office

Mr. E. Zonderveld Central Statistical Office

Mr. R. Hilhorst Province Utrecht

Mr. E. Dijk Province Overyssel

Mr. H. Deuters Province Gelderland

Mr. J.M. Boejinga Embassy of the Netherlands in Brussels


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

457

APPENDIX L PORTUGAL

SUMMARY

No specific regulations exist regarding the application of industrial waste on agricultural andforestry or for land reclamation. There was no statistics on landspreading of industrial waste. Itis estimated that 25 million tonnes of animal manure is produced and recycled to land inPortugal.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

458


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

459

L1 LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK


No specific regulations exist regarding the application of industrial waste on agricultural andforestry or for land reclamation. Only the following can be taken into account regarding sludgefrom water treatment plants having a similar composition to domestic sludge:

• Decree 446/91 of 22nd November regarding the agricultural use of sludge from domesticwastewater treatment plants or similar, supplemented by

• Decree 176/96 of 3rd October, fixing the limits for heavy metals contained in the sludgeand the soil; and

• Decree 177/96 of 3rd October, defining the analytical methods for the soil and the sludge.

According to the Ministry of the Environment, Decree 446/91 can apply to sludge resulting thetreatment of wastewater from the food or paper production industries. Nothing specificappears to be required at present.

Every six months, the producers of sludge must provide the Regional Director of the RegionalCo-ordination Commission in charge of the environment and natural resources with thefollowing information:

• The total quantity of sludge produced and the amount recycled for agricultural and otheruses;

• The sludge’s characteristics and composition

Decree 446/91 requires the producer of the sludge to supply the users with all the most recentinformation concerning the parameters stated in the decree.

It is the responsibility of the producer of the sludge cited in Decree 446/91 to respect theimplementation controls the decree defined.

Only Decree 446/91 establishes thresholds for sludge from domestic wastewater treatmentand similar:


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

460

Thresholds for sludge

Parameters Maximum values in mg/kg of dry solids

Cd

Cu

Ni

Pb

Zn

Hg

Cr

20

1000

300

750

2500

16

1000

Max. flow limits for sludge over 10 years

Parameters Maximum values in kg/ha/year of drysolids

Cd

Cu

Ni

Pb

Zn

Hg

Cr

0.15

12

3

15

30

0.1

4.5

For the soil

Maximum values in the soil in mg/kg of dry solidsParameters

pH <5.5 5.5<pH<7.0 pH>7.0

Cd

Cu

Ni

Pb

Zn

Hg

Cr

1

50

30

50

150

1

50

3

100

75

300

300

1.5

200

4

200

110

450

450

2.0

300


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

461

L2 QUANTITIES OF WASTE RECYCLED TO LAND

Farm waste

The estimated quantities of wastes produced by farm animals (Table L1), based on the latestfigures on livestock numbers provided from Eurostat (1999-2000) and an average volumeproduced per head, amount to 25 million tonnes on a fresh weight basis. This includes farmyard manure and manure from grazing animals.

Table L1 Number of livestock and estimated manure production in Portugal

Animal type Number1

(x103)Yield

(l per week andper animal)

Total(x103 t perannum)2

Cattle

• Less than 1 year 386 80 1 605

• 1<<2 years 231 140 1 681

• Male/heifer more than 2years

110 250 1 430

• Dairy cow more than 2 years 351 315 5 750

• Other cow more than 2years

325 280 4 732

Pig NA

Laying hen 7 097 1.1 406

Sheep/goat 4 241 50/25 10 011

Total 25 616Note:

1 Eurostat 1999-20002 as fresh weight

Industrial waste

No quantitative data available.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

462


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

463

APPENDIX M SPAIN

SUMMARY

In certain Autonomous Regions, industrial wastewater treatment plant sludge is controlledunder Royal Decree 13/10/1990 of 29 October, an adaptation of the Sewage Sludge Directive86/278/CEE of 12 June 1986.

A waste can also be classed as a product when it corresponds to a product on the list offertilisers and derivatives laid down in the “Fertilisers and Derivatives” Act of 28 May 1998.The Ministry of Agriculture permission must then be sought to market the product.

A proportion of industrial waste such as food waste is recycled to land in Spain. However,there is no statistics on quantities of industrial waste recycled to land in Spain. The only figureprovided was that 15% of paper sludge is applied to forestry. It is estimated that 190 milliontonnes of animal manure is produced annually in Spain and deposited on agricultural land.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

464


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

465

M1 LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK


Residues from farming activities, including animal manure and other natural substances aresubject to compliance with,

• for cattle manure - the Royal Decree 261/1996 of 16th February concerning the protectionof water from contamination by nitrates of agricultural origin (adaptation of the “Nitrates”Directive); and

• for pig manure/slurry – the Royal Decree 324/2000 of 3rd March regarding the spreadingof pig droppings.

A proposed Royal Decree intends to define the framework (dosages, safe distances andmethod of application, storage, and production and management plans) for using the residuesfrom such activities as agricultural fertiliser and exempt them from authorisation under the“additional countryside clause” of Law 10/1998.


By passing the recent Marco Law of 21 April (Law 10/1998) regarding waste, the Spanishgovernment has ensured transcription of European Directive 91/156/EEC modifyingCommunity Directive 75/442/CEE.

This law covers all waste except for atmospheric emissions (Law 38/1972 of 22 December),radioactive residues (Law 25/1964 of 29 April) and the disposal of effluent in continentalwaters (Law 29/1985 of 2 August) and the sea (Law 22/1988 of 28 July). The Marco Lawstipulates that the person responsible for the waste may be its producer, its keeper or theperson handling its treatment.

The producers of the waste are exempt from responsibility as soon as they hand the wasteover to a waste management organisation duly authorised in accordance with the terms of theMarco Law and the Autonomous Region’s respective additional norms.

According to the Marco Law, the waste management organisations handling the recycling orelimination of the waste must be duly authorised and registered. Neither the practical methodof authorisation nor the content of the authorisation itself are explicitly defined in this law, norare they defined, as a general rule, by the various Autonomous Regions.

Waste management organisations must hold an administrative authorisation for the recyclingor elimination of the waste, granted by the relevant body in each Autonomous Region.

It supplements certain specific regulations regarding the following activities:

• Control of residues from quarrying and the exploitation of mineral resources (Law 22/1973of 21st July);

• Controls on farm waste, including animal manure and other natural substances concerningthe protection of water from contamination by nitrates of agricultural origin;


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

466

• Paragraph R10 of Appendix II.B of the Commission’s decision of 24th May 1996 excludingsludge generated from food industries from reception and washing phases when thesematerials are destined to be recycled to land to provide agricultural benefit (i.e. sugarrefinery sludge).

• Royal Decree 2224/1993 of 17th December regarding the disposal and processing ofdead animals and animal remains and defining health regulations covering disposal andprocessing as regards the production of cattle feed.

The national law may be supplemented by legislation specific to each Autonomous Region,sometimes even before the Spanish national law. For example, in Catalonia, Law 6/1993 of15 July regarding waste, in application of European Directives 91/156/CE of 18 March and91/689/CE of 12 December, and Law 3/1998 of 27 February.

In certain Autonomous Regions, industrial wastewater treatment plant sludge is controlledunder Royal Decree 1310/1990 of 29 October, an adaptation of the Sewage Sludge Directive86/278/CEE of 12 June 1986.

Authorisation

According to Article 13 of the Marco Law 10/1998, recycling and waste disposal operationsare subject to authorisation by the Autonomous Region relevant environmental authority.Authorisation will be granted for a given period and then successively renewed for a furtherperiod each time.

In practice, each Autonomous Region in Spain controls the granting of such authorisations.Control is strict in some Autonomous Regions and lacking in others. More often than not thereare no regulations controlling the granting of these authorisations in terms of threshold valuesfor trace elements or conditions of implementation.

Controls on products and soil

The Marco Law regarding waste does not describe in absolute terms the conditions forgranting authorisation. The Law does not specifies quality requirements for products recycledto land. Each Autonomous Region sets its own criteria.

Certain Autonomous Regions (for instance, Catalonia and Rioja) apply the thresholdsestablished by Royal Decree 13/10/99 of 29 October covering domestic sludge to industrialwastewater treatment sludge (see Table M1). These threshold values are sometimes taken asa reference value for waste other than wastewater treatment sludge. No threshold valueshave been set regarding the nutriments contained in the waste.

According to the industrial process, certain other components are demanded and phytotoxicitytests required in order to demonstrate the innocuous nature of the product in terms ofgermination and growth (Catalonia).

No frequency is set for performing analyses. Analytical laboratories must be approved by theMinistry of Agriculture.

Waste can be classed as a product when it corresponds to a product on the list of fertilisersand derivatives laid down in the “Fertilisers and Derivatives” edict of 28 May 1998. TheMinistry of Agriculture permission must then be sought to market the product.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

467

Certainly, the products most commonly encountered are composts conforming to Appendix IIIregarding organic amendments. Article 12 of this edict stipulates that the wastewatertreatment sludge defined and regulated by Royal Decree 13/10/1990 of 29th October(domestic wastewater treatment sludge and similar) can be used as a raw material forcomposts conforming to Appendix III if, and only if, it does not constitute more than 35 % ofthe initial mixture (weight for weight in terms of the initial dry solids).

The “Fertilisers and Derivatives” Law of 28 May 1998 establishes threshold values for heavymetals and pathogens. These threshold values are shown in the Table M1 below.

Table M1 Limit values for by-product recycled to land in Spain

Royal Decree 1310/1990(mg/kg of dry solids)

Parameter Limit valueas in Fertiliser Act

28/05/98(mg/kg of dry solids)

Threshold, pH<7 Threshold pH>7

Cadmium 3 20 40

Copper 450 1000 1750

Nickel 120 300 400

Lead 150 750 1200

Zinc 1100 2500 4000

Mercury 5 16 25

Chromium 270 1000 1500

The Fertiliser Law 28 May 1998 and its modifying Law of 2 November 1999, also define thethreshold values for pathogens:

Salmonella: Complete absence in 25g of treated product

Faecal streptococci: 1.0x103 MPN/g

Total enterobacteria: 1.0x103 units forming colonies per gram

Escherichia coli: < 1000, most probable number (NPP) pergram of product treated

Controls regarding use on soil

There are no Spanish regulations requiring checks on the soil nor that define any parametersto be analysed.

In Catalonia, however, there is a manual for handling industrial residues produced by the“Junta de Residuos” (Residues Council), the relevant body within the “Generalitat deCatalunya” (Catalonian Regional Government), which requires a spreading programme to bedrawn up covering:


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

468

• Analyses of the waste demonstrating its agronomic benefit and its suitability foragricultural spreading;

• Details of the types of cultivation and the farming systems involved in the spreadingoperations;

• A list and the cadastral references of the agricultural sites concerned;

• The periods of application and the equipment used; and

• Calculations of the spreading dosages, the parameters applied and a fertilisation report.

The soil analyses must cover at least the following parameters: Texture, pH, conductivity,organic matter, CaCo3, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, magnesium and the heavy metals,Cd, Hg, Ni, Cu, Pb, Zn and Cr.

Reporting

In Catalonia, the manual for handling industrial waste mentioned above describes the stepsrequired for the correct handling of waste:

The producer or keeper of the waste must

1. Be recorded in the Register of Producers of Industrial Waste / possess a waste producer’scode number

2. Characterise the waste by means of an analysis performed in an approved laboratory

3. Codify the waste according to the Catalonian Waste Catalogue (CRC: Catálogo deResiduos de Catalunya)

4. Determine the waste’s most suitable destination in accordance with the CRC and itscharacterisation

5. Select a waste management organisation from the General Register of WasteManagement Organisations (RGS: Registro General de Residuos) that can ensure itsappropriate treatment

6. Draw up the Acceptance Sheet (FA)

7. Have the FA approved by the Junta de Residuos

8. Select a haulier from the Register of Waste Hauliers

9. Draw up a Monitoring Sheet for each transport operation, signed by both the haulier andthe waste management organisation responsible for the waste’s effective treatment.

In terms of spreading organic residue on agricultural soil, this manual states that:

• The characterisation of the waste must demonstrate its agronomic benefit and itsinnocuous nature; the following parameters, at least, are checked: pH, conductivity, drysolids, organic matter, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium, iron and the heavymetals, Cd, Hg, Ni, Cu, Pb, Zn and Cr.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

469

• The soil of the agricultural sites due to receive the waste must be analysed

• A spreading programme must be drawn up (dosages per site/type of cultivation/ useableagricultural area)

• A Destination Sheet (FD) must be compiled for each agricultural site, to be signed by thewaste’s producer or keeper and the final consignee (the farmer or owner of the land) in 3copies: the producer or keeper, the final consignee and the Junta de Residuos.

• The monitoring sheet, termed the Agricultural Applications Monitoring Sheet, must bedrawn up in 4 copies: the waste’s producer or keeper, the haulier, the farmer and theJunta de Residuos.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

470


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

471

M2 QUANTITIES OF WASTE RECYCLED TO LAND

Farm animal waste

No quantitative data are available for industrial waste. Estimates produced by the Ministry ofAgricultural regarding the production of animal manure amounted to about 90 million tonneson a fresh weight basis. The statistics on the number of pigs taken into account, however,were from 1955. The quantities were re-calculated using the coefficient produced by theMinistry and the most recent figures on the number of farm animals extracted from Eurostat1999-2000 database (Table M2). The total production of farm manure amounts to 190 milliontonnes (as fresh weight).

Table M2 Number of farm animals and manure production in Spain (Eurostat 1999-2000)


Yield(l per week and

per animal)

Total(x103 t per

annum)

Bovine animals less than 1 year old 2131 40.6 4 511

Bovine animals aged between 1and 2 years

689 210 7 544

Bovines animals of 2 years andover

3383 385 67 914

Total of cattle population 6 203 79 970

Pigs less than 50 kg 11416 21.1 12 625

Pigs 50 kg and less than 110 kg 10 551 47.9 26 380

Pigs of more than 110 kg 325 97.8 1 657

Total of pig population 22 292 40 663

Laying hens 46 707 1.1 2 672

Broiler 544 428* 0.2 5662

Total chicken population 591 135 8 334

Sheep/goat 23 934 50 65 659

Total 190 771Note:

* Figure for 1995


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

472

Industrial waste

Food industry

The food sector is divided into several categories. Their production is summarised below:

Olive oil: Spain is the first world producer of olive oil. It produces 0.7 to 1 million tonnes perannum.

Dairy: the total quantities of milk processed and products generated in Spain in 1996 arepresented below:

Milk Volume processed (x106 litre)

Cow 5 917

Ewe 303

Goat 358

Total 6 579

Milk products Quantity (x103 t/y)

Liquid milk, cream and other fresh dairy products 4 381

Powder milk 25.4

Condensated milk 41.2

Butter 23.4

Yoghurt 430

Cheese 269

Brewery: Spain is the third European producer. The production amounted in 1999 to 26millions hectolitres at 22 breweries and 415 000 tonnes of malt at 12 malt factories.

Wine production and distilleries: The total production for 1996 amounted to 22 million ofhectolitres (hl) of wine and 1.15 million hl of alcohol.

Meat processing industry: There are 1 534 slaughterhouses in Spain. The total production ispresented below:


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

473

Quantity(tonne)

Pig 2 892

Cattle 678

Poultry 1 001

Sheep 221

Goat 14

Leather and skin industry

The 1996 production amounted to 46 080 tonnes of cattle and 21 686 tonnes of sheepprocessed skins.

Pulp and paper industry

The production of pulp in Spain amount to 1.7 million tonnes (94% chemical pulp) plus 0.6millions tonnes are imported and 0.85 million tonnes are exported. There is no recycling inagriculture of paper sludge; 15% is however recycled to forestry, 60% goes to landfill, 10% isincinerated and 15% is disposed to other outlets (AS PAPEL, pers.comm 2001).


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

474


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

475

M3 PROPERTIES OF WASTE SPREAD ON LAND

Farm waste

The nutrient content of pig manure is presented below:

Parameters Min Max

Dry matter (%) 5 7

BOD (mg/l) 5000 25000

N-NH4 (mg/l) 3000 5000

P2O5 (mg/l) 1000 3000

K2O (mg/l) 1000 3000

Zn (mg/l) 20 40

Cu (mg/l) 20 40


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

476


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

477

APPENDIX N SWEDEN

SUMMARY

The landspreading of wastes in Sweden has traditionally occurred without a central governingbody to regulate it. This lack of central control coupled with several recent scares have led tothe current situation where there is relatively little landspreading activity, other thanexperimental, of industrial waste. A proposal to create a voluntary regulatory and qualitycertification scheme was accepted in January 2000 and will be put into place within the nextthree years. The proposal is welcomed by all players (farmers, food industry organisation,EPA etc.) and the voluntary scheme is preferred over attempt to regulate through legislativemeans e.g. at the EU level.

There are about 30 million tonnes (fresh weight) of organic residues produced annually inSweden including 75% of animal manure, 9% food waste, 3% of sewage sludge, 3% ofhousehold waste and 2% of paper sludge. Recycling of untreated organic waste to agricultureis no longer taking place in Sweden due to public, farmers and dairy industry opposition.However, several municipalities have implemented new programmes for treating organicmaterials from abattoir, food processing, paper production and wood mills together with greenwaste, household waste and in some cases animal manure into 8 anaerobic digesters orcomposting plants before being recycled to land.

About 2.5 million of organic waste are incinerated or landfilled. Current practice is to incineratethe majority of wood waste and paper sludge which is not landfilled, but there are concernsabout the presence of silver and brominated flame-retardants, as well as the impacts of airemissions of the addition of fossil fuels for burning wastes.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

478


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

479

N1 LEGISLATION AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK


There is no legal quality requirements for organic wastes recycled to land in Sweden. Thelandspreading of wastes in Sweden has traditionally occurred without a central governingbody to regulate it. This disaggregated organisation, coupled with several recent scares haveled to the current situation where there is relatively little landspreading activity, other thanexperimental, of industrial waste.

The presence of powerful associations, such as the dairy association, means that farmers canbe discouraged from land spreading even without recourse to legal or other instruments.Farmers are also currently worried about their public image and are especially concerned withavoiding media scares and adverse publicity.

In addition, farmers and other land owners, have responsibility for what they put on their landin Sweden as specified in the new environmental law (Miljöbalken). In January 1999 a newEnvironmental Framework law came into force in Sweden. The law, called “Miljöbalken”combines 15 separate environmental laws, and the broadbrush policies of sustainability,precautionary principle and an integrated approach to all activities which have an impact onsustainable development, regardless whether they concern individual or industrial activities.The law places binding obligations on the person who runs a business or takes actions, toacquire the knowledge about the possible environmental effects and also incorporates theprinciple that the risks for environmental effects shall be carried by the polluter. Thislegislation, coupled with the lack of regulation and often uncertain benefits, has furtherdiscouraged farmers from landspreading.

The current concern stems largely from a scare related to imported liming products fromDenmark which were applied to land in Southern Sweden and then subsequently were foundto be at the centre of quality concerns (lime and microbiological). Farmers are also currentlyworried about their credibility and trustworthiness in the eyes of society as a whole and areespecially concerned with avoiding media scares and adverse publicity.

There is a need for standardising and regulating the use of land spreading as a disposaloption for industrial waste. Sewage sludge is regulated under national legislation in Swedenbut there is currently no co-ordination over landspreading of other wastes. All companies inSweden must produce annual environmental reports which should contain all the quality andquantity details of waste which is processed for landspreading. However all the report go tovarious bodies depending on the type of industry. For example the biogas plants report to theEPA while the dairy industries report to the food industry association. The process lackstransparency and there is concern among the farmers about the need for co-operation withthe large food associations. For example, by landspreading a farmer may contravene dairybest practice recommendations and might therefore not be allowed to sell their crops asfodder, which would severely impact on the marketability of their produce.

A proposal to create a voluntary quality certification scheme for landspreading was acceptedin January 2000 and will be put into place within the next three years. The proposal iswelcomed by all players (farmers, food industry organisation, EPA etc.) and the voluntaryscheme is preferred over attempt to regulate through legislative means e.g. at the EU level.This scheme would be organised by a private company which would be responsible for


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

480

processing regulation and for collating official statistics on the quality and quantity oflandspread wastes.

Details of the scheme are published in the report “Sjösättning av certifieringssystem förkompost och rötrest” by Lundeberg et al (AFR report 257, ISSN 140-4471). The voluntaryscheme recommends quality requirements for both composting and anaerobic digestedmaterials, and also for the process and raw materials used. Criteria are also given for in housequality controls.

There is also a need for a similar scheme for forestry to regulate and control e.g. bio ash andlime. Currently there are quality regulations for landspreading to forestry land but the quantityis not controlled. It is expected that the two schemes would eventually merge.

So while Sweden would welcome some sort of standardisation from Europe with qualitychecks and certifications which would alleviate farmer fears about their liability for what theyput on their land, this voluntary scheme is favoured by all parties.

The detailed quality requirements under the voluntary certification scheme for the end productare listed below:

Agronomic parameters

Organic substance: The product shall contain less than 20% organic matter, measured as theloss of ignition in weight as a percentage of dry matter.

Viable seeds and plant pieces: The product must contain less than 2 viable seeds and plantpieces per litre.

Water content: the water content must not exceed 50% of the mass in the finished product.

The amount of compost or liquid fertiliser which may be spread onto agricultural land is limitedby SNSF 1994:2 for the application of plant nutrients and metals as listed below. The use ofthe compost replaces phosphorous and potassium fertilisers, as well as liming, when the soilnutritional balance is otherwise good. When compost is used, there should therefore not beany NPK fertiliser applied to land, and only fast growing or nutrient requiring plants that willrequire fertilisation the same year.

Soil phosphorus class Total P(kg ha-1)

Ammonium nitrogen(kg ha-1)

I and II 35 150

III-V 22 150Class per 100g dry soil:

I<2, II =2.0 - 4.0, III 4.1 – 8.0, IV 8.1-16; V > 16 (UNIT???)


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

481

Heavy metals and visible pollution

The by-products applied to land should comply with the maximum concentration of heavymetals as specified below:

Metal Maximum allowedconcentration(mg kg-1 DM)

Maximum annualamount applied to land

(g ha-1)

Lead 100 25

Cadmium 1 0.75

Copper 100 300*

Chromium 100 40

Mercury 1 1.5

Nickel 50 25

Zinc 300 600

Note:

* A higher copper value may be acceptable if it can be shown that the soil needsadditional copper.

Visible pollution: this includes foreign substances like plastic, glass, metal, etc. The totalpresence of visible pollutants greater than 2 mm in length must not exceed 0.5% of dry mass.

Microbiological quality

The by-product recycled to land which contain low risk abattoir waste must conform withmicrobiological requirements specified under SJVFs 1998:34 listed below:

• Salmonella: absence in 5 samples of 25 grams;

• Enterobacter: 3 out of 5 samples must not exceed levels 10 per gram and 2 out of 5samples can be between 10 and 300 per gram.

The quality of other by-products that do not contain abattoir wastes is depending on thepresence of viable seeds and plant parts as specified above.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

482


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

483

N2 QUANTITIES AND QUALITY OF WASTE RECYCLED TO LAND

Farm waste

Since joining the EU in 1995 Swedish agriculture has undergone substantial change. The totalproduction increased mainly from increased areas used for cereal production and an increasein pig and poultry farming. There are currently about 10,000 pig farms in Sweden, most ofwhich are large set-ups of more than 500 pigs. There are 1.7 million cattle in Sweden, abouthalf are dairy and produce 3.3 million tonnes milk (EU quota). Lamb and sheep farming isvirtually non-existent. The majority of farms (70%) in Sweden are combination farms, the mostcommon being agriculture and forestry. Part time farms, where agriculture is complementedwith non-agricultural activity is also very common. It is estimated that around 22.8 milliontonnes of manure are produced in Sweden each year (EPA 1996 as reported by Rodhe 1998,Brolin et al 1996 as reported by Thomsson 1999) equivalent to 2.8 million tonnes of dry solidsper annum. The number of animals as reported in Eurostat 1999-2000 are presented in TableN1 below. Animal manure represents about 75% of the total amount of organic wastegenerated in Sweden. The majority of manure is recycled directly to land while a proportion istreated in one of the 8 anaerobic digesters or composting plants before being recycled to land(see section below).

Table N1 Animal manure production in Sweden (Eurostat 1999/2000)


Bovine animals less than 1 year old:

Calves for slaughter 22.9

Other calves 504.4

Bovine animals aged between 1 and 2 years: 422.7

Bovines animals of 2 years and over:

Male 24.8

Heifers 99.0

Dairy cows 447.4

Other cows 158.3

Total of cattle population 1,679.5

Piglets less than 20 kg 566

Pigs 20 kg and less than 50 kg 454.5

Fattening pigs of at least 50 kg 691.4

Breeding pigs 50 kg and higher:

Boars 4.2

Covered sows 142.4

Sows not covered - total 59.5

Total of pig population 1,918

Laying hens 5647.7

Sheep/goat 437/5.3


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

484

Industrial waste

In 1996, it was reported (Brolin et al 1996 as reported by Thomsson 1999) that there wereabout 30 million tonnes of organic residues (fresh weight) produced annually in Swedenincluding 75% of animal manure (Table N2). Sewage sludge represents around 3% of the totalequivalent to 1 million tonnes (fresh weight). Organic waste from the food industry representsabout 10% of this amount and is to a large extent re-used in agriculture as fodder.

The major part of organic residues are recycled to land and about 2.5 million are incineratedor landfilled. A small proportion of the municipal organic waste (14%), restaurant waste (8%)and parks and garden waste (28%) is biologically treated (composted or digested) while therest is either incinerated or landfilled.

Table N2 Types of organic residues produced in Sweden1

Type of waste Quantity

(%) Tonnes per annum2

Manure 75 22 800 (2 786)

Harvest residues 4 1 200

Park and garden residues 2 530

Sewage sludge 3 1 100 (200)

Drink waste 4.1 1 230

Vegetable waste 3 900

Meat and fish residues 0.6 180

Other residues 1.4 420

Paper sludge 2 600

Household organic waste 2.7 800 (350)

Restaurant and market waste 1 180

Total 30 x 106 tonnesNotes

1 Brolin et al 1996 as reported by Thomsson 19992 As fresh weight, figures in brackets are equivalent in dry matter

Several municipalities have implemented new programmes for treating organic materials fromabattoir, food processing, paper production and wood mills together with green waste,household waste and in some cases animal manure into 8 anaerobic digesters or compostingplants before being recycled to land. Biogas generated is either used for power generation oras fuel for city bus and cars. Typical waste components include waste from:

• Parks, gardens and other green spaces (leaves, grass, branches, twigs, fruit, flowers,plants and plant parts).

• Greenhouses, garden centres & nurseries (Tips, soil and turf)


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

485

• Household, canteens, and restaurants (Fruit and vegetable left-overs, coffee and tea left-overs, left-overs of foodstuffs, food left-overs, eggshells, cardboard, paper, paper bags,biodegradable plastic bags, plants, potting soil).

• Foodstuff related retail shops and wholesalers (Fruit, vegetables, potatoes, dairy products,drying paper, serviettes, bread, meat, meat pieces (bone and trimmings), cured meats andprovisions, flowers, pot-plants, soil, turf).

• Agriculture (manure from pigs, cattle, sheep. Horses birds and other livestock. Small deadanimals, straw, harvest remains, ensilage, green sludge, energy crops…)

• Forestry (bark, wood, sawdust, sludge from cellulose industry, chippings).

It was not possible to collect data from all of the 8 treatment centres on the quantities ofdigested product which is applied to land. The available information is presented in Table N3.

The key problem areas with the process is threefold:

1. There are some technical problems associated with the processing of the waste. Inparticular the inclusion of metal objects (knives and forks), glass, or plastics causedamage to the processing units, and also if they are accidentally ground up with the wastethey cause pollution of the ground.

2. Acceptability: The general rule that what comes off the land should go back onto the landis highly acceptable to most Swedes, but there is still a little concern about exactly what istreated in the plants and therefore what the liquid fertiliser actually contains. This is beingdealt with by education, once there is understanding of exactly what is treated there is lessanxiety on the part of the farmers and the general public.

3. Dairy: there is an issue whereby many dairy organisations have advocated that onlymarket fertilisers should be used to grow fodder which is fed to dairy cows. Again thisissue is one of lack of information, and once there is understanding of what exactly isbeing treated then there is less anxiety.

Table N3 Quantity of waste treated in anaerobic digestion plants

Plant Quantity produced per year(wet weight basis)

Solbackens Biogas Plant This plant only processes domestic waste from 2municipalities, and produced 1000 tonnes of compost in1999.

Filborna Biogas Plant 18,000 tonnes pa

Karpalunds Biogas Plant 73,000 tonnes (50% input from animal manure (pig andpoultry) and 45% from abattoir wastes, food processingwastes and 5 % household wastes

Laholms Biogas Plant 37,000 tonnes (DM 5-7%)


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

486

Sugar processing

Danisco Sugar has been Sweden's sugar producer since 1907 but for the greater part of thistime it went under the historic name of Sockerbolaget Svenska Sockerfabriks AB, SSA (TheSugar Company). Since 1992/93, the company has been a member of the Danish food groupDanisco. It is the only company in Sweden producing sugar. Danisco Sugar produce, developand market sugar, sweetener products, animal feed products and dietary fibres which arebased on the sugar beet as the major raw material. The Head Office is in Arlöv, just outsideMalmö. The sugar growing area and processing industry is concentrated to the southernregion of Sweden, especially in Skåne (Scania). Daily processing capacity in tonnes of beets1999 in Table N4 below.

Table N4 Daily processing capacity of Danisco sugar in Sweden

Product type Company name Production(tonnes of raw sugar per day)

White sugar Köpingebro 9,400

Örtofta 9,750

Raw sugar Jordberga 8,000

Refined and specialised sugar Arlöv 800

Lime is used in the sugar manufacturing process to clean the sugar beets. The waste productis therefore lime which is enriched with pectins and sugars. The total mass of waste producedin Sweden is about 120,000 tonnes and it is about 65% dry matter. This waste is sold tofarmers as fertilisers.

Forestry and paper mill waste

The forest land in Sweden is owned by private companies, individuals, county councils andthe church. Since 1940 the amount of forest land owned by companies and individuals hasremained relatively constant at about half the Swedish forested area. Some of the biggestland owners are shown in Table N5.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

487

Table N5 Large forest owners in Sweden 1997

Forest owner Productive forest land(x 106 ha)

AssiDoman AB 3.3

SCA Skog AB 1.8

Stora skog AB 1.5

State owned forest(Statens fastighetsverk)

1.1

MoDo Skog AB 1

Other private companies 1.1

The Church 0.4

Municipalities and county councils 0.3

Public forest in North Norrland 0.3

Other forests 0.2

Provinces 0.1

Many of the Swedish forests and forestry companies have a Forest Stewardship Council(FSC) certification and /or ISO / EMAS standards. The FSC certification imposes criteria onthe way forest land is managed which affect the possibilities for landspreading of wastesalthough no specific details are included in the criteria.

There are concerns in Sweden that fertilising forest soils have some unknown effects. Forexample, the municipality of Hagfors has stopped StoraSkogs AB from fertilising any forests intheir municipality until they are assured that there are no long term effects of fertilisation ondensity and distribution of flora; on trees (especially resistance to insect pest); on long termchanges in the soil, on water resources and nitrification.

There is, however, some limited experimental applications of industrial waste products onforestry land in Sweden as shown in Table N6 below.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

488

Table N6 Experimental application of industrial waste to forestry lands

Owner of forestland Policy Quantity in 1999

AssiDomän (paper & pulp) Experimental land spreadingonly, looking at possibilitiesfor future work

Bio-ashes* 500 tonnes/yeardry weight;

Lime sludge** 5 500 tonnes

Stora Enso AB: (paper andpulp)

Small quantities of bio-ashprovided for fertilisation offorest soils.

Bio-ashes: a combinedamount of 9411 tonnes(Enocell provided 6161 andNymölla Mills 3,250 tonnes)

Notes:

* Bioashes are the ashes produced from burning bark** Lime sludge is sludge generated by the recovery of cooking chemicals in the sulphate process

The information submitted by the Swedish Paper Federation to CEPI is summarised in TableN 7 below. It is estimated that 450,000 tds of sludge are produced in Sweden from papermills. It shows that only less than 5% of sludge from paper production is recycled to land inreclamation projects while the majority is either incinerated (60%) or landfilled (30-40%).There is a landfill tax applied in Sweden (250 SEK/ wet tonnes) but de-inking sludge, greenliquor sludge and waste from recycling mills are exempted.

The EPA produces every year a report based on a questionnaire on waste arisings from theforestry and paper sector. The quantities of non-hazardous waste generated by the Swedishpaper industry in 1998 were reported to amount to about 1.2 million tonnes (SEPA 1998)(Table N8). It is important to note that the level of information which is reported varies, assome mills have only reported quantities of wastes which were landfilled whereas others havereported quantities of wastes which were recovered, re-used (i.e. as bio-fuel), incinerated orlandfilled.

Table N7 Quantity and outlets for sludge produced from paper mills in Sweden(SFIF, personal comm. 2000)

Waste type Volume(m3)

Quantity(tonnes)

Land-reclamation

Landfill Inciner-ation

Other*

Paper Sludge 1,300,000 390,000 < 5% 30% 60% 5%

De-inking sludge 170,000 60,000 0 40% 60% 0%

Note:

* recycling in other industries


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

489

Table N8 Quantity and outlets for waste produced from paper mills in Sweden(SEPA 1998)

Plant Tonne/year Outlet

Green liquor sludge1 360 606 Landfill

Lime2 and lime gravel 33 567 Landfill

Sludge 144 862 Landfill>>incineration>agriculture

Wood waste3 438 521 Landfill> incineration/biofuel

Screening and fibre reject 30 684 Incineration/landfill>other recovery

Waste from recycling millsexcluding de-inking sludge

26 913 Landfill/incineration/biofuel

Waste from coating 9 716 Landfill

Other paper and pulpspecific wastes

61 791 Landfill>biofuel

Bioashes/slag from energyextraction

82 104 Landfill>>cover material

Total 1 188 764Note:

1 Inorganic waste formed during recovery of cooking chemicals2 Lime surpluses is often re-incinerated in the lime kiln3 Wood yard waste is bark contaminated with stones which can not be used as fuel


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

490


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

491

N3 PROPERTIES OF WASTE SPREAD ON LAND

Farm waste

The quality of animal slurry is summarised in Table N9 below.

Table N9 Quality of animal manure (EPA 1999)

Unit Slurry from cattle Slurry from pigs

DM (%)

Tot-N (% of DM) 4.04 6.34

NH4-N (% of DM) 2 4.19

Tot-P (% of DM) 0.76 2.32

Pb (mg/kg DM) 0.92 0.95

Cd (mg/kg DM) 0.13 0.17

Cu (mg/kg DM) 49 178

Cr (mg/kg DM) 2.3 4.1

Hg (mg/kg DM)

Ni (mg/kg DM) 3.6 3.2

Zn (mg/kg DM) 190 635

Industrial waste

The Agricultural University provided some statistics on the quality of digested product (TableN10) and detailed quality analyses from the Karpalund anaerobic digestion plant (Table N11).


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

492

Table N10 Quality of digestion product from organic residues

Unit Digestion residue1

DM (%) 4.1

Tot-N (% of DM) 11.5

NH4-N (% of DM) 8.9

Tot-P (% of DM) 1.9

Pb (mg/kg DM) 2.55

Cd (mg/kg DM) 0.29

Cu (mg/kg DM) 128

Cr (mg/kg DM) 14

Hg (mg/kg DM) 0.03

Ni (mg/kg DM) 7.8

Zn (mg/kg DM) 395Note:

1 Average value from four digestion plants in Sweden treating manure and source separated organic wastefrom slaughter-houses, food processing industries, restaurants etc. Data from 1999.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

493

Table N11 Quality of liquid bio-fertiliser from Karpalund anaerobic digestion plant(01/03/2000)

Parameter Concentration Unit

Dry matter 4.1 %

Total nitrogen (Kjeldahl) 9.3 %DM

Loss by ignition 76 %DM

C/N 4

PH 8.0

Ammonium Nitrogen 7.1 % DM

Phosphorus P 2.0 % DM

Potassium K 4.6 % DM

Magnesium Mg 0.73 %DM

Calcium Ca 2.7 % DM

Sodium Na 1.4 % DM

Boron B <50 mg/kg DM

Sulphur S 9300 mg/kg DM

Lead Pb 7.6 mg/kg DM

Cadmium Cd <0.5 mg/kg DM

Copper Cu 210 mg/kg DM

Chromium Cr 6.3 mg/kg DM

Mercury Hg <0.06 mg/kg DM

Nickel Ni 8.5 mg/kg DM

Zinc Zn 440 mg/kg DM

Manganese Mn 320 mg/kg DM

Fluoranthene 0.12 mg/kg DM

Benzo (b) Fluoranthene <0.1 mg/kg DM

Benzo (K) Fluoranthene <0.1 mg/kg DM

Benzo (A) Pyrene <0.1 mg/kg DM

Benzo (G,H,I) Perylene <0.1 mg/kg DM

Indeno (1,2,3-CD) Pyrene <0.1 mg/kg DM

PCB (28) <0.002 mg/kg DM

PCB (52) <0.002 mg/kg DM

PCB (101) <0.002 mg/kg DM

PCB (118) <0.002 mg/kg DM


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

494

Parameter Concentration Unit

PCB (153) <0.002 mg/kg DM

PCB (138) <0.002 mg/kg DM

PCB (180) <0.002 mg/kg DM

4 – Nonylphenol <4.0 mg/kg DM

Toluene <0.1 mg/kg DM

Paper industry

Information on the quality of de-inking sludge was also provided and is presented in TableN12 below.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

495

Table N12 De-inking sludge – Quality (SFIF, personal com 2000)

Parameter Number of samples Mean

Dry solids (%) 5 38

C/N ? 200

N (mg/kg ds) 7 2,300

Zinc (mg/kg ds) 7 130

Copper (mg/kg ds) 7 140

Nickel (mg/kg ds) 7 12

Cadmium (mg/kg ds) 7 < 0.8

Chromium (mg/kg ds) 7 29

Lead (mg/kg ds) 7 16

Arsenic (mg/kg ds) 7 < 8


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

496


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

497

REFERENCE

EPA 1996. Floden av organiskt avfall (Flows of organic residues). Report No 4611, SwedishEnvironmental Protection Agency.

EPA 1999. Animal manure – content of nutrients and trace elements. Report No 4974,Swedish Environmental Protection Agency.

Rodhe L (1998) Recycling organic solids in agriculture: State of the art in Sweden. In:Proceedings of ROSA meeting 1, Sweden, 24-25 September 1998.

Thomsson O (1999) The current situation concerning the use of municipal organic waste inSweden. In: Proceedings of NJF seminar No 292, November 23-25 1998, AgriculturalResearch Centre, Jokioinen, Finland, Session 1.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

498

CONTACTS

Name Organisation

Ingrid Haglind AssiDomän AB

Jari Lalli Statens Fastlighestverk

Marcus Hallgren Svenska FSC rådet

Christer Johansson Karpalunds biogas plant

Ola Palm Swedish institute for agricultural and environmentalengineering

Birgit Landquist Danisco Sugar AB

Bo Audelius RVF (Swedish association of waste management)

Simon Lundeberg SEPA

Kersti Lindeholm SEPA

Holge Kirsman Swedish Agricultural University


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

499

APPENDIX O UNITED KINGDOM

SUMMARY

In the UK, certain industrial wastes applied to agricultural land are exempt from licensingunder waste regulations. This is to permit the beneficial recovery of certain wastes and followsprovisions made under the 1991 EC Waste Framework Directive. Animal wastes and sewagesludge are not controlled under waste regulations.

The Environment Agency is the lead authority responsible for enforcing waste regulations inEngland and Wales. In Scotland, the responsible authority is the Scottish EnvironmentProtection Agency (SEPA) and in Northern Ireland, it is the Environment and HeritageService. These agencies administer the processes of exempt activity registration andlicensing. The Environmental Agency is in the process of revising exemption from wastemanagement licensing for the landspreading of waste.

Under the exemption system, contractors have to pre-notify the regional regulatory agenciesof the maximum quantity, type of waste and location of the landspreading operations.However this information does not reflect the actual amount recycled to land and is not keptcentrally.

To be exempt from licensing, a landspreading operation must demonstrate agricultural benefitand ecological improvement. There are no statutory information requirements or controls onthe quality of waste or on soil quality as required for sewage sludge recycled to land.Consequently, there is very limited information available on the quality of exempt wastes atthe regulatory levels and this information is mainly kept by landspreading contractors.

Landspreading of industrial wastes is mostly carried out by contractors who collected wastefrom the site of production. Solid wastes are usually transported in dumper trucks or skipswhilst liquid wastes are transported in tankers. Very few waste producers have the ability tostore wastes on their premises, resulting in the need for storage at the site of application.Storage-related problems at the site and transport related issues can arise. There are nospecific minimum standards for storage of these wastes in contrast to the regulations applyingto animal slurries.

It is estimated that about 98 million tonnes (on a fresh weight basis) of waste is recycled toland each year in the UK equivalent to around 17 million tonnes of dry solids. Of this, 93% iswaste from farm yard manure and 5% is industrial waste. For comparison, an additional 1.1million tonnes of sewage sludge (dry solids) is also recycled to land. In the UK, information onquantities of agricultural waste is generally available while the actual amounts of exemptwastes spread on land are not know accurately because there is no requirements for recordkeeping.

In the UK, landspreading of wastes is in a period of change. While it is likely to increase, it willalso be more closely controlled. The industries producing wastes impacted by theselegislative changes will need to review their current operations to ensure that they areequipped to cost effectively meet the challenge presented by the regulatory environment.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

500

Landspreading is likely to increase because it is a preferred option to disposal in the hierarchyof waste management options, and because of the landfill tax which has altered the balanceof costs between landspreading and landfilling of wastes. In addition, the Landfill Directive hasintroduced a programme for the reduction of municipal biodegradable material going tolandfill. This does not currently apply to industrial sources of organic matter. However, there isevery likelihood that it will in the future, when it will have a significant impact on landfillingpractices and increasing pressure on other disposal outlets for organic materials.

In addition, controls on landspreading operations of some organic wastes could be broughtunder the same regulatory controls as those applied to sewage sludge as proposed in revisionof the Sludge Directive. In parallel with this revision, the Department for Environment,Transport and the Regions is reviewing the current exemptions open to the landspreading ofwaste to agriculture, and is recommending that properly qualified advice is used to assess theagricultural benefit of a waste prior to spreading on farm land.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

501

O1 LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

Responsible parties

The Environment Agency is the lead authority responsible for enforcing waste regulations inEngland and Wales. In Scotland, the responsible authority is the Scottish EnvironmentProtection Agency (SEPA) and in Northern Ireland, it is the Environment and HeritageService. The Agencies administer the processes of exempt activity registration and licensing.Under the Agency conservation duties, it has to ensure that an activity does not adverselyaffect the integrity of a designated conservation area. In order to ensure that an activityqualifies for an exemption, the Agency will need to consult with the appropriate organisationsor consider the potential impact internally to identify any designated sites and assess the risksposed by landspreading.

These agencies are also responsible for the prevention of pollution of surface andgroundwaters. The Environment Agency has a duty to monitor and protect the quality ofgroundwater and to conserve its use for water resources. It also had a duty to maintain andwhere appropriate, enhance conservation of the surface water environment. The Agency maytake measures to prevent pollution from landspreading of controlled wastes.


Wastes generated on farm such as animal manures and slurries are excluded from thedefinition of controlled wastes and are therefore not subject to the associated statutorycontrols with respect to on-farm recycling.

Section 92 of the Water resources Act 1991 and the Control of Pollution (Silage, Slurry andAgricultural Fuel Oil) Regulations 1991 as amended, control the storage and handling ofsilage effluent, slurry, dirty water and fuel oil to prevent pollution of water resources. Farmerscan be fined up to £20 000 if their operations are not compliant.

The Control of Pollution (Silage, Slurry and Agricultural Fuel Oil) (Scotland) Regulations 1991specify minimum standards for storage of slurry. In the event of a pollution incident arisingfrom leaching from storage or the result of spreading, the relevant regulatory agencies maytake action or may serve a notice requiring improvements.

Guidelines for Good Agricultural Practice

There are several practical guides published by the Ministry of Agriculture to help farmers andgrowers avoid causing environmental damages. The recommendations deal mainly withagricultural wastes but also cover other organic wastes spread to land such as exempt wastesand sewage sludge. These are detailed below.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

502

Code of Good Agricultural Practice for the Protection of Water

This is a practical guide to help farmers and growers avoid causing water pollution, which is aStatutory Code under Section 97 of The Water Resources Act 1991(and before that underSection 116 of the Water Act 1989). Section 6 deals with ‘Other Organic Wastes’. Itrecommends a limit of 250 kg ha-1 y-1 of total nitrogen in organic materials applied to the land.Organic materials should not be applied on non-spreading areas, and restricted to 50 m3 ha-1

(slurries) and 50 t ha-1 (consolidated organic materials such as manure) per application inhigh-risk areas. These non-spreading and high-risk areas are defined in paragraphs 25 to 27,30 and 31 of the Code. This Code is likely to be updated in 1998. It is understood that therevision will permit application of 500 kg ha-1 of total nitrogen in one application every twoyears of wastes containing little plant available nitrogen (such as compost) in catchments lesssensitive to nitrate leaching.

Code of Good Agricultural Practice for the Protection of Air

This practical guide is to help farmers and growers avoid causing air pollution from odours,ammonia and smoke, or from greenhouse gases which cause global warming. It includes asection on ‘Precautions when spreading manure and slurry’, with advice on methods ofapplication which reduce odour emission. It advises that landspreading should be avoided infields close to and upwind of houses unless it is liquid slurry that can be band spread orinjected, or has been treated to effectively reduce its odour. No more than 50 m3 ha-1 (slurries)or 50 t ha-1 (solids) of waste should be applied at one time in locations where odour could be aproblem.

Code of Good Agricultural Practice for the Protection of Soil

To help farmers and growers avoid causing long-term damage to the soils which they farm,this guide gives general guidance on practices which will maintain the ability of soil to supportplant growth. The background to the report makes reference to The Council of Europe and itsagreement to the Recommendation on Soil Protection in May 1992. Section 4 oncontamination contains guidance on ‘Other industrial and domestic wastes’ in paragraphs104-107, and on ‘Dredging materials’ in paragraph 115. Broad guidance is given in thissection on fertiliser value, beneficial conditioning of soil, and avoidance of water pollution andsoil contamination.

Scottish Office Code of Good Practice for the Prevention of Environmental Pollution fromAgricultural Activity

In addition in Scotland, there are guidelines on storage and spreading in the Scottish OfficeCode of Good Practice for the Prevention of Environmental Pollution from Agricultural Activity(1997). It is a practical guide for farmers, growers, contractors and others involved inagricultural activities. The Code covers the main agricultural activities and describes some ofthe management practices that can be adopted to avoid or at least minimise the risk ofcausing pollution while enabling economic agricultural practice to continue. The Scottish Codecontains information on non-farm wastes and other organic wastes as well as agriculturalwastes.

The equivalent Code for Northern Ireland is published by Department of Agriculture, NorthernIreland (DANI, 1990) and is entitled the ‘Countryside Management Code of Practice for theProtection of Water’.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

503


The Waste Framework Directive (91/156/EEC amending 75/442/EEC) provides the basis onwhich all waste is managed. The Waste Framework Directive was implemented in the UK byPart II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Waste Management LicensingRegulations (WMLR) 1994.

The WMLR 1994 provide a system for the licensing of waste recovery, disposal and treatmentoperations. The WMLR allow the spreading of some from non-agricultural wastes ontoagricultural land without a licence. If not specifically exempted, a waste management licencewill be required for such activities. Guidance on the licensing of waste management facilitiesis provided in Waste Management Paper (WMP) No.4 (DoE 1994).

Wastes that are exempt from site licensing and which can be spread on agricultural land arelisted in Table O 1. A more limited range of wastes (only Part I of Table O 1) can be spreadon specified non-agricultural land such as operational land of a railway, light railway, internaldrainage board or the Environment Agency; or b) and land which is a forest, woodland, park,garden, verge, landscaped area, sport ground, recreation ground, churchyard or cemetery.

Table O1 Exempt wastes from licensing under Schedule 3, paragraph 7 of WMLR1994

Part I

• Waste soil or compost.

• Waste wood, bark or other plant matter.

Part II

• Waste food, drink or materials used in or resulting from the preparation of food or drink.

• Blood and gut contents from abattoirs.

• Waste lime.

• Lime sludge from cement manufacture or gas processing.

• Waste gypsum.

• Paper waste sludge, waste paper and de-inked paper pulp.

• Dredgings from any inland waters.

• Textile waste.

• Septic tank sludge.

• Sludge from biological treatment plants.

• Waste hair and effluent treatment sludge from a tannery.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

504

Specific conditions and limitations for wastes to be allowed to be spread on land and exemptfrom a license as specified in the Regulations are listed below:

• No more than 250 tonnes or, in the case of dredgings from inland waters, 5,000 tonnes ofwaste per hectare may be spread on the land in any period of twelve months.

• Where more than one waste type is to be spread, the quantities applied must be takentogether;

• The activity must result in benefit for agriculture or ecological improvements;

• Notification must be given to the local Waste Regulation Authority (i.e. the EnvironmentAgency) in advance of the spreading taking place. For regular applications, informationmust be repeated every six months or when the nature of the waste changes. Table O2below describes the statutory information that is required under the WML Regulations. TheAgency’s form requires information in addition to the minimum statutory requirements toensure that the exemption requirements are met.

• Once notified to and accepted by the Agency, the activity will be registered as exempt. Theregister is then available for public scrutiny.

Table O2 Information requirements for pre-notification of landspreading ofexempted wastes

• the operator’s name, address, telephone (and FAX) number(s);

• a description of the waste, including the process from which it arose;

• where the waste is being and will be stored pending spreading;

• an estimate of the quantity of the waste or, in the case of a frequent spreading, an estimateof the total quantity of waste to be spread during the next six months; and

• the location and intended date and, in the case of a regular spreading, the frequency of thespreading of the waste.

It is recommended in Circular 11/94 (26/94 in Wales) to use properly qualified advice (PQA)prior to the notification. PQA should take account of the environmental protection objectivesstated in the Regulations, ensuring that waste is recovered without endangering human healthand without using processes or methods which could harm the environment and ensuring thateach field is suitable for landspreading. PQA should interpret the analysis and confirm thebeneficial aspects of landspreading a waste, determine appropriate application rate andapplication method.

It is an offence under s.33 (1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to spread waste onland where this is outside the requirements for an exemption. Under such circumstances thepenalties would be a fine of up to £20 000 and/or six months imprisonment. It is an offence tocarry on an exempt activity involving the recovery or disposal of waste without beingregistered with the Environment Agency. The penalty would be a fine of up to £10.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

505

The exemption for landspreading is under review by the Department of the Environment,Transport and Regions. Some of the aspects considered for revision are;

• list of exempt wastes;

• suitability of each application is assessed on a case by case basis as the benefit of thematerial depend on site specific factors as well as on the composition of the waste;

• definition of agricultural benefit and ecological improvement;

• information which should be submitted

• notification period;

• competence of operators, etc.

Control of water resources from landspreading operations

The Groundwater Regulations 1998 implementing the EC Groundwater Directive (80/68/EEC)prevent the entry of all List I substances into groundwater, and limit the entry of List IIsubstances, so as to avoid pollution. As the range of substances allocated to these lists isextremely broad, and includes all pesticides, inorganic phosphorus, and ammonia, a widerange of materials spread onto agricultural land could be affected.

Where activities on land such as exempt waste spreading are taking place in accordance withthe provisions and conditions of the exemption, and the waste does not contain significantconcentrations of Listed substances (and it provides agricultural benefit and does nottherefore constitute ‘disposal’), an authorisation will not normally be required under theGroundwater Regulations. However, activities which are exempted from the wastemanagement licensing regime are not automatically exempted from the provisions of theGroundwater Regulations and a separate assessment may be needed. Therefore, providingsufficient details are submitted and sufficient account is taken of groundwater at the pre-notification stage, the spreading of “exempt” wastes will not require authorisation.

Where existing controls are found to be inadequate, or not being followed, there is provisionfor serving a “notice” prohibiting or modifying the activity concerned. When pollution ofgroundwater and/or surface water has occurred as a result of an exempted activity, theAgency has powers under the Water Resources Act 1991 (as amended by the EnvironmentAct 1995) to pursue prosecution of the polluter.

The implementation of the EC Nitrate Directive (91/676/EC) required the designation of NitrateVulnerable Zones (NVZs). In England and Wales 68 NVZs totalling an area of approximately600,000 ha were designated.

The statutory provisions have been published in the Protection of Water Against AgriculturalNitrate Pollution (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996/888). The Nitrates Directiveprovisions were transposed into the Protection of Water Against Agricultural Nitrate Pollution(Scotland) Regulations 1996. One NVZ has been set up in Scotland, at Balmalcolm covering12 farms. SEPA has recommended that two further NVZs be established, namely the Ythancatchments and at Kinnesswood.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

506

Within the NVZs, compulsory measures are imposed:

• restrictions on organic manures in NVZs - limits of 210 kg N ha-1 y-1, reducing later ifnecessary to 170 kg N ha-1 y-1, and

• closed periods on shallow or sandy soils when liquid slurries containing readily available N.

Sewage sludge legislation and guidance

The Sludge Regulations do not apply to landspreading of exempt waste. However, much ofthis is relevant to landspreading of industrial wastes since it covers sludge quality in terms ofcontent of nutrients, contaminants, pathogenic micro-organisms, odour and treatmentprocesses, and land management to protect soil and water quality and prevent environmentalproblems. Monitoring, record-keeping and reporting are also covered. A relevant themethroughout the regulations and guidelines for landspreading of sewage sludge is the onus onthe sludge producer to monitor sludge and soil and keep records of operational details in aregister.

Recycling of sewage sludge to agricultural and other land is controlled by statutoryrequirements and detailed recommendations in various guideline documents. The relevantdocuments are:

• The Sludge (Use in Agriculture) Regulations (as amended) S. I. 1263. HMSO, London(1989) implemented the EC Sludge Directive (86/278/EEC). The Regulations transposeinto UK law the provisions of EC Sludge Directive 86/278/EEC. The Regulations arecurrently being revised. The Regulations place restrictions on the application of sewagesludge to agriculture and place duties on sludge producer, operator and occupier of theland with respect to sludge use;

• The Safe Sludge Matrix is an agreement between the UK Water industry and the BritishRetailer Consortium (BRC) which provides additional restrictions on use of sewage sludgeon agricultural land. The main output is the ban on use of untreated sludge except on nonfood industrial crops on which untreated sludge is allowed to be applied until the end2001. Other restrictions apply.

• These statutory regulations have been complemented by the Code of Practice forAgricultural Use of Sewage Sludge first published by DoE in 1989. A revised Code(second edition) was issued in April 1996 to take account of the DoE/MAFF review of foodsafety / animal health and soil fertility aspects of the rules for applying sewage sludge toagricultural land, which reported in 1995. A MAFF booklet on general information on theapplication of sewage sludge to agricultural land was published in 1996 (MAFF 1996). TheWater Services Association has recently (WSA 1996) produced a leaflet on recyclingsewage sludge / biosolids to agriculture. Additional guidance for landspreading of sewagesludge has been published in Scotland by SAC, Technical Note T 450 ;

• As regards non-agricultural land, guidance includes Forestry Commission Bulletin 107, ‘AManual of Good Practice for the Use of Sewage Sludge in Forestry’, HMSO, London(Wolstenholme et al, 1992) and a manual of good practice for the use of sewage sludge inland reclamation is also available (Wolstenholme and Hall 1999).


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

507

Protection of conservation areas

The spreading of industrial wastes has the potential to impact areas and sites of wildlife,cultural and historical interest. There are many designated conservation areas which areafforded protection under various pieces of legislation. For example, Site of Special ScientificInterest (SSSIs) are areas of land notified under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (WLCA81) as being of special nature conservation interest. All National Nature Reserves, Ramsarsites, Biosphere reserves, Special Protection Areas and Special Areas of Conservation arealso designated as SSSIs.

In order to ensure that an activity qualifies for an exemption, it must not affect the countrysideor a place of special interest.

Control on Animal health

The Animal By-Product Order 1992 as amended defines animal by-product and sets out therequirements covering their disposal. It implement the EC Directive 90/667/EEC which coverthe disposal and processing of animal carcasses or parts of animal or products of animalorigin not intended for direct human consumption. It does not cover animal excreta andcatering waste.

An animal by-product has to be disposed by rendering approved premises, incineration orburning other than at an incinerator. If access is difficult or the amount or distance to therendering premises or incinerator is too large, then the by-product may be buried at a depthwhere it would not be accessible to carnivorous animals.

Blood, not used in the manufacture of feed-stuff, is not an animal by-product if the blood isfrom healthy animals and may be eligible to be landspread under the exemption of WMLR1994. If blood is from diseased animals, it is an animal by-product.

Additional controls on animals and animal health include the Disease of Animals (WasteFood) Order 1973 which covers specified waste food and requires its processing undercertain provisions. The Animals and Animal Products (Examination for Residues andMaximum Residue Limit) Regulations 1997 prohibit the use of certain substances which havea hormonal or thyrostatic action and of beta-agonists and also lay down rules for monitoring ofresidues in live animals and animal products.

The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) has considered theacceptability of landspreading of blood and gut contents in relation to concern about possibletransmission of BSE resulting from the practice. The Committee felt that given the fact that noBSE infectivity had ever been detected in blood and that there was no evidence of horizontaltransmission of disease which would suggest that cattle wastes were directly infective tocattle, there was no reason to recommend that this practice should be prohibited or thought tobe inadvisable (MAFF News Release 198/96 7.6.1996).

Strict procedures are now enforced at abattoirs and renderers with the intention of removing,for separate disposal, components of cattle carcasses which might contain BSE prions. Theterm Specified Bovine Material (SBM), now called Specified Risk Material (SRM), is used torefer to these parts of the carcass. An example of these statutory procedures is The SpecifiedBovine Material (No. 2) Order 1996 (SI 1996 No. 1192) which came into effect on 1 May 1996.Further legislation (Article 2e SBM (No. 3) Order 1996) includes the need to ensure that


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

508

trapped abattoir waste (i.e. caught in screens and drain traps in areas handling SBM) is dealtwith separately as SBM and is not discharged onto land.

Control on Plant health

Diseased plant waste cannot be spread on agricultural land. The disposal; of such waste iscontrolled by the Plant Health (Great Britain) Order 1993 which required the material to beincinerated or disposed of to landfill. A code of practice has been developed by MAFF, theCode of Practice for the safe disposal of agricultural and horticultural waste 1994, wherebymaterial leaving the processing plant should receive suitable treatment or in the case of soil,be returned to the field of origin.

Additional guidance relevant to landspreading of wastes

• A report on legislative requirements for landspreading of industrial wastes entitled,‘Controlling the landspreading of wastes’. This was a guidance document produced by theNational Association of Waste Regulation Officers and National Rivers Authority TechnicalLiaison Group (NAWRO/NRA 1996);

• CIRIA Report 157 - Guidance on the disposal of dredged material to land;

• Code of Practice for landspreading paper mill sludge published in 1998 by the PaperFederation of Great Britain; and

• The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution in its nineteenth report on ‘SustainableUse of Soil’ (RCEP 1996) has made a number of recommendations concerninglandspreading of sewage sludge and industrial wastes.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

509

O2 QUANTITIES OF WASTE RECYCLED TO LAND

Farm animal wastes

It is estimated that, for the whole of the UK, around 91 million tonnes of farm animal manure(fresh weight) are collected annually from farm buildings and yards (Table O3). Thisrepresents the majority of materials recycled to agriculture, around 93%. Of these,approximately 50% are handled as solid manure (mainly cattle, sheep, pig and poultry) andthe remainder as liquid slurry (cattle and pig). Additionally around 60 million tonnes of excretaare deposited directly in the field by grazing cattle, sheep and pigs (Chambers 1999).

The majority of farm manures are applied to farm land where there are produced while 40% ofpoultry and 15% of pig manure are transported off-site for disposal.

Only a small minority of farmers treat their slurry before landspreading mainly due to odourproblem.

Table O3 Estimated quantities of farm animal manures recycled annually toagricultural in the UK

Animal type Number1

(x103)Estimated quantity2

Fresh weight(x106 tonnes)

Dry solids(x106 tonnes)

Cattle 11 423 73.3 12

Pig 7 284 10.4 1

Poultry 150 494 4.4 2.1

Sheep 44 656 2.6 0.6

Total 90.7 15.7

Ref.:

1 MAFF statistics for 19992 Chambers 1999

England and Wales

It has been estimated that in England and Wales alone, approximately 67 million tonnes (freshweight) of animal manures are collected annually from farm buildings and yards (Table O4).About 45% are as solid based manure and the remainder is as liquid slurry. Additionallyaround 45 million tonnes of excreta are deposited directly in the field by grazing cattle, sheepand pigs. These 67 million tonnes of handled manure contain about 340,000 tonnes ofnitrogen, 90,000 tonnes of phosphorus and 250,000 tonnes of potassium (Chambers et al1999).

The amount of manure and slurry produced vary depending on the type of stock and the mainsource of further variation in weight or volume being the degree of dilution with straw or water.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

510

However, the quantities produced by various classes of livestock can be predictedreasonably.

Table O4 Estimated quantities of farm yard manure handled annually in Englandand Wales (Chambers et al 1999)

Animal type As solid manure(x 106 tonnes)

As liquid manure(x 106 tonnes)

Total fresh weight(x 106 tonnes)

Cattle 21 32 53

Pig 4.3 4.6 8.9

Poultry 3.5 - 3.5

Sheep 1.9 - 1.9

Total 30.7 36.6 67.3

Scotland and Northern Ireland

It has been estimated (SAC 1998) that approximately 15 million tonnes (fresh weight) of farmyard manure are applied to farmland in Scotland every year. This account for 96% ofquantities of waste currently recycled to land in Scotland. These figures are based onnumbers of animals and estimated volumes produced per head. Approximately 80% of thismanure is in the liquid form. Most of the farm waste in Scotland is derived from cattle excreta(Davis et al 1999) originating from the dairy, beef, pig and poultry sectors. There is anadditional 10 million tonnes (fresh weight) excreted directly on to land by grazing animals.

Typical loadings of nutrients for various animal wastes in Scotland are shown in Table O5below. The total amount of nutrients applied to farmland in Scotland through animal manureaccounts for 33 750 t N per annum (14%) and 10 635 t P per annum (11%). Approximately30 000 t of N is supplied to Northern Ireland farmland each year in the form of animal manure(Long and Gracey 1990), equivalent to approximately 6 million tonnes of farm yard manure.

Table O5 Typical loadings1 of nutrients for different animal wastes (Aitken 1998)

Type of animalwaste

Plant-available N(kg)

PO4

(kg)K2O(kg)

Cattle slurry 37 25 112

Pig slurry 200 100 135

Poultry broiler litter 1250 850 700

Note:1 assuming an application rate of 50 m3 per ha

Industrial wastes


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

511

Since the introduction of the Waste Management Licensing Regulations (WMLR) 1994, avariety of non-agricultural derived wastes have been applied to land under legal exemptionsfrom licensing. The actual amounts of exempt wastes spread on land are not knownaccurately. This is due to the recording system currently in place whereby the sludgecontractor is required only to give pre-notification of maximum amounts intended to be spreadin a six-month period. Quantities provided by contractors are based on maximum area towhich the waste is to be applied and maximum application rate. Therefore figures onquantities of exempt wastes are no more than rough estimates, the exceptions being paperwastes. It has not been possible to estimate a figure for some wastes although for some ofthese, such as dredgings and waste lime materials, the quantities spread on land areexpected to be quite substantial and in excess of 500 000 tonnes (wet weight) per annum.

Data on quantities recycled to land presented in Table O6 have been compiled usingquantities reported by Davis et al (1999) for Scotland and Environment Agency (pers. comm.2001) for England and Wales. The total estimate amounts to 7 million tonnes of waste on afresh weight basis. Davis and Rudd (1998) had estimated that around 850 000 tonnes of drymatter was recycled to land in the UK through industrial residues, representing 4% of the totalquantity of materials recycled to agriculture. The main industrial sectors using this route arefood and sugar beet processing industries, and paper industry.

Table O6 Estimated quantities of animal farm wastes and exempt wastes spreadannually on land in the UK1

Waste type Quantity(x103 wet tonnes per annum)

Food waste 1 549

Paper sludge 405

Textile 3.5

Tannery and leather 9

Biological treatment plant sludge2 13

Other organic waste3 5 051

Mineral waste4 39

Total 7,070

Notes:

1 including England and Wales and Scotland2 Including sectors such as metal production, gas/electricity/ water utilities, transport, storage and

communications2 Including vegetable, animal matter, tissue and body fluids from various sectors such as

catering, public administrations and maybe abattoirs4 Including gas cleaning waste, cement and lime waste, rocks and soil from various sectors


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

512

England and Wales

The Environment Agency is required to produce estimates of the amounts of controlledwastes produced in England and Wales and the methods by which it is managed. Last yearthe Agency has launched the National Waste Survey based on questionnaire to around20,000 industrial and commercial premises and visits to around 12,000 of these premises.This information has been cross-referenced with information from other sources (i.e. Tradeassociations). A draft report (LQM 2000) has been produced and the latest figures wereprovided by the Agency (Environment Agency, pers. comm. 2001).

In England and Wales, the quantities of wastes generated by industrial processes andrecycled to land as reported in the National Waste Survey (Environment Agency, pers. comm.2001) are given in Table O7. It amounts to 6.8 million tonnes (fresh weight).

Table O7 Estimated annual amounts of wastes applied to land in England andWales (National Waste Survey, Environment Agency, pers. comm. 2001)

Waste type Quantity(x 103 wet tonne per annum)

Food industry waste1 1409

Paper sludge 322

Textile waste 3.5

Leather and tannery waste 0.3

Cement waste 12.2

Biological treatment plant sludge in other sectors2 4.3

Other organic waste2 5050

Rocks, sub-soils and contaminated soil/subsoil 15

Fly-ash or other gas cleaning residues4 0.03

Other mineral wastes 0.4

Total 6817

Notes:

1 Including vegetable and animal matter, mineral waste and sludge from biological treatmentplant processing waste from a wide range of industries including vegetable processing, sugarprocessing, meat and fish processing, dairies, soft drinks, breweries, etc.

2 Including sectors such as metal production, gas/electricity/ water utilities, transport, storage andcommunications

3 Including vegetable, animal matter and tissue and bloody fluids from various sectors such ascatering and public administration and maybe abattoirs

4 Including sectors such as machinery, equipment, furniture and other manufacturing industries


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

513

Scotland and Northern Ireland

In Scotland, it is estimated that the quantities of exempt wastes range between 250 000(Davis et al 1999) and 364 000 tonnes (fresh weight) (SEPA 1998). Almost 290 000 tonneswas pre-notified in SEPA East Region, 60 000 tonnes in SEPA West Region and 14 000tonnes in SEPA North Region. The main exempt wastes used in Scotland are paper sludge,distillery waste and milk processing waste (Table O8). Industrial wastes account for 3% ofwaste recycled to land in Scotland.

Table O8 Estimated annual amounts of exempt wastes applied to land in Scotland(Davis et al 1999)

Waste type Quantity(wet tonnes per annum)

Paper mill sludge 82 306

Distillery waste 69 710

Milk processing >30 000

Chicken processing 20 526

Blood and guts 10 521

Tannery 8 810

Biological treatment plant sludge 8 584

Waste lime 8 483

Molasses 6 510

Liquid ammonia 2 922

Abattoir waste including guts and paunchcontents

1 700

Fish processing 1 422

Septic tank 1 400

Waste wood or other plant matter -

Total 252 984

Paper sludge

Landspreading of paper waste sludge, waste paper and de-inked paper pulp is one of theexempt activities from waste licensing included in Schedule 3 of the Waste ManagementLicensing Regulations 1994. The Paper Federation of Great Britain has published last year aCode of Practice for Landspreading of Paper Mill Sludge (1999). A large proportion of it isrecycled to land since the introduction of the landfill tax on 1 October 1996. There have beencases and there are concerns in the Environment Agency that the agricultural route is beingused as a cheap disposal option for paper sludge. The other disposal options used in the UK


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

514

for paper sludge are landfill and incineration or heat production on the paper mill site forpulping process.

The UK paper industry comprises 97 mills owned predominantly by multinational companies.These mills are generally very large and perform the pulping of the fibre. The main productsand production figures for 1998 are presented in Table O9 below. The source of the fibre inthe UK is a mixture of mostly imported pulp and waste paper. Pulping of wood chip only occurat one site by mechanical pulping in the UK.

The National Waste Survey indicated that the total of waste materials generated by paperindustry is approximately 2.5 million tonnes including paper sludge, de-inking sludge, wastepaper, plastics, etc. In the validation study (LQM 2000), it was estimated that newsprintproduction generates annually around 540 000 tonnes of paper sludge and 170 000 t ofdeinking paper sludge (on a fresh weight basis) which can not be recycled into the productionprocess. The coefficients of calculation are presented in Table O10. In addition, graphicsproduction generates around 30 000 tonnes of sludge. The quantities of paper sludgecurrently recycled to land in England and Wales are reported to amount to 322,321 tonnes(fresh weight) (Environment Agency, pers. comm. 2001), approximately 45% of sludgeproduced. In Davis and Rudd study (1998), a largest quantity of sludge was reported as it wasestimated that 520 000 tonnes of paper sludge (dry solids basis), or in excess of1 x 106 tonnes fresh weight, were spread on land in 1995 in England and Wales.

Table O9 Paper products production 1998 (LQM 2000)

Product Type Annual Production(x 106 tonnes)

Newsprint 1.0

Graphics (printing etc) 1.8

Tissue 0.6

Packaging papers 0.1

Case materials (corrugated card) 1.8

Cardboard 0.7

Other 0.4


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

515

Table O10 Paper sludge and de-inking sludge arising from newsprint production inthe UK (LQM 2000)

Total raw material(x106 tonnes/y)

Yield(%)

Paper sludge(x106t/y)

Wet weight Dry solids*

Virgin fibre 0.92 65 0.54 0.32

Recycled fibre 0.5 80 0.17 0.10

Total 0.71 0.42

Note:

* Assuming a 60% dry solid content

Food and drinks waste

Landspreading of waste food, drink or materials used in or resulting from the preparation offood or drink is one of activities exempt from waste management licensing in Schedule 3 ofthe Waste Management Regulations 1994.

The Food and Drink Federation (FDF pers. comm. 2000) has relayed WRc request forinformation to their Members. The information received has been incorporated in the sectionbelow. In addition the information collected by the Environment Agency has been reported,

The National Waste Survey estimated that approximately 8 million tonnes of waste areproduced annually by the Food, Drink and Tobacco sector (LQM 2000) and 1.4 millions arerecycled to land. There is a wide range of different industries associated with food and drinksector which range in size from national/multinational organisation (e.g. brewing) to small localproducers (e.g. dairy products). Waste management practices are likely to vary with size, inparticular, the accuracy of record keeping which is likely to be better for larger companies andthe scope for re-use which will be subject to economic factors such as proximity of wasteutilising industries.

The largest volumes of waste are produced by the primary processors and include waste suchas soils from vegetable washing, offal from meat processing and husks from cereal milling.Much of these wastes are re-used as far as possible by secondary industries, e.g. productionof animal feed or fertiliser.

Wastes which can not be re-used for quality or economic reasons are disposed of to differentoutlets depending on costs. These types of waste will be mostly in either sludge or liquid form.In some cases it may be possible to treat liquid waste streams prior to discharge to sewer, butin most cases disposal to land will be the preferred option. Disposal to land includes bothconsignments to landfill and spreading on agricultural land (landspreading). Landspreadingcan only be carried out if qualifying as an activity exempt from waste management licensing,and is not allowed for all waste types.

For the secondary manufacturing processes, economics dictates that waste generated fromfoodstuffs is kept to a minimum. Significant quantities of food wastes arise on an irregular


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

516

basis, for example contaminated batches. Ancillary wastes, e.g. packaging etc, are more likelyto be major waste types generated by secondary manufacturing processes.

Information supplied by some individual companies to the Food and Drink Federation (FDFpers. comm. 2000) is summarised below:

Company Sector Waste type Waste spread to land Waste landfilled

A Vegetableprocessing

Fat trap material comprisingstarch and vegetable oilNegligible heavy metalcontent and low pathogencontent

Local small-scalerecycling of 100 tds y-1

at one site, equivalentto 0.1% of primaryproduct

Equivalent to 2% ofprimary product

B Sugarrefining

Filter sludgeDS: 70%CaCO3: 75% dsCa(OH)2: 5%CaSO4: 3% dsOrganics: 15%

25,000 t y-1 (ww) isspread as a soilconditioner

Mill industry

NABIM (The Incorporated National Association of British and Irish Millers) has stated that theflour milling industry generates virtually no waste from its milling processes and thus negligibleamount is spread on land.

Breweries

The UK brewing industry uses an estimated 34 million m3 per year of water. Most breweriesdischarge over 70% of supplied water as trade effluent (ETPP 1998b). Brewery waste such asgrain, wort and yeast can be used as animal feed rather than discharged to sewers. Trub,subject to certain conditions can be mixed with other liquid wastes for use as animal feed.Trub and spent hops can be used as a garden mulch or soil conditioner. Trub or otherbrewery by-products are also spread on land. Large breweries generate enough yeast to sellit to food manufacturers. Small breweries do not have this option but can sell it to farmers asanimal feed supplement because it contains over 40% proteins. Slurry from beer filtrationcontaining yeast, bacteria and other solids can be sold for animal feed without furtherprocessing. Ullage drains from the cask can be stored with spoilt beer and given to localfarmers as animal feed. SIBA (Society of Independent Brewers) has stated that its membersdo not use the landspreading outlet.

Dairy industry

Dairies use large amounts of water mainly for cleaning. The effluent is sent to a off-site wastewater treatment plants or is treated on site. Minimising water use and effluent generation atsource are considered and implemented in the dairy industry as well as ways of re-usingwaste water, re-suing by- products on site or in other processes or for animal feed such aswhey recovery.

About 90% of the milk used for cheese-making ends up as whey, a watery waste containingproteins and lactose. It is usually tankered away to be dried and re-used or spread onfarmland. It is a valuable animal foodstuff and is also used as an additive in human foodstuffsuch as ice cream, bakery products, etc. There are examples in the UK where whey proteinand lactore are recovered by membrane technology on site and sold while the demineralised


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

517

water is used for cleaning membrane units and as boiler feedwater. Proper disposal isessential because untreated whey can cause serious water pollution and odour is anotherpotential problem.

Effluent treatment plants at dairies produce large amounts of sludge which has a high nutrientand organic matter content. The sludge can be sold for use as fertiliser without treatment witha potential value up to £100 /tonnes (ETBP 1999). The dried sludges can also make a usefulcompost or soil conditioner.

Soft drink industry

Over 25 billion litres of water are used to produce 10 billion litres of soft drinks consumedevery year in the UK according to a survey of water use in the UK Soft Drinks Industry(ETBPP 1998). The majority of water supplied does not end up in the product but is used forrinsing containers, equipment, floor washing etc. For 60% of survey respondents, over 30% oftheir effluent is discharged off site as waste to a sewage treatment plant.


Wastes from abattoirs include blood, gut contents, wash waters and sludge from dissolved airflotation treatment (DAF) where this process has been used to separate solids from any of theliquid waste materials of the abattoir, or some admixture of them. Of these, the exemptedwastes are blood and gut contents. It has been assumed from the Agency file which figuresthat around 5 million tonnes of abattoirs waste are applied to land in England and Wales.However, this will need to be doubled checked with the Agency.

Waterworks sludge

It is estimated that a total of approximately 131,000 tonnes dry solids per annum of potablewater treatment works (WTW) sludges are currently produced in the UK. Currently the majordisposal methods in the UK are landfill (58% by mass ds) and discharge to waste watertreatment plants (29%). A number of novel outlets are being used or developed in the UKsuch as the use of sludge in brick-making and on agricultural land. The use of WTW sludge inland reclamation, manufacture of soil improvers and aggregate production are also receivingsome attention (Dillon et al 1996). The cost of disposal of WTW sludge has been estimated as£5.5 million.

The application of waterworks sludge to agricultural or other land is potentially a majordisposal route. At the present time, however, very little waterworks sludge is utilised in thisway because of the requirements of waste management legislation. Waterworks sludge is notspecifically exempt from current waste licensing regulations which require generally that anyapplication of waste to land should result in benefit to agriculture or other ecologicalimprovement. The application of waterworks sludge to forest lands has been investigated inseveral countries. Land reclamation could also be a significant disposal route for waterworkssludge, subject to acceptance by the relevant regulatory authorities.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

518

Other waste

The foundry industry is looking into recycling foundry sand to land by mixing it with organicwastes to make a substitute for soil and is seeking exemption for licensing (Ends report 299,December 1999).


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

519

O3 PROPERTIES OF WASTE SPREAD ON LAND

Farm Animal wastes

Surveys on farm waste quality are not carried out systematically but a substantial amount ofinformation is available in the open literature mainly from monitoring studies carried out byADAS.

Nutrient content

The fertiliser value of manures and slurries is highly variable from farm to farm and isdependent on factors such as type of livestock (species, breed and age), diet, type ofproduction and waste handling system. The dry matter content and nutrient content can alsovary considerably from one batch to another.

The total amount of nitrogen contain in manure in the UK has been estimated to 450 000tonnes (Chambers 1999). Typical nitrogen content for different types of manure are given inTable O11 (Chambers 1999).

Table O11 Typical dry matter content and nutrient (fresh weight basis) in farmanimal waste produced in the UK (Chambers 1999)

Manure type Dry Matter(%)

Tot N(kg t-1)

N-NH4 + uricacid

(kg t-1)

Cattle-FYM fresh 25 6 1.5

Cattle-FYM old 25 6 0.6

Pig-FYM fresh 25 7 1.8

Pig-FYM old 25 7 0.7

Layer manure 30 15 7.5

Broiler/turkey litter 60 29 11.6

Beef slurry 6 2.3 1.2

Dairy slurry 6 3 1.5

Pig slurry 4 4 2.4

Separated slurry – strainer box 1.5 1.1 1.5

Separated slurry – weeping wall 3 2 1.4

Mechanically separated slurry 4 3 1.5

Separated slurry solids 15 5 1


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

520

Potential impact on water quality

Following manure application to land, ammonium-N (plus uric acid N for poultry manure) willbe converted to nitrate-N which is susceptible to leaching.

Most animal waste such as slurries and silage have a high Biochemical Oxygen Demand(BOD) (Table O12) which if entering a watercourse after application to land can deplete theavailable oxygen content in water and result in ammonia levels which are toxic to manyaquatic animals. High BPD waste added to wet soils can give rise to anaerobic conditions insoil due to soil oxygen depletion and result in poor plant growth. Manures and slurries alsocontain suspended solids which can increase turbidity in waster and smother benthic faunaand flora.

Table O12 Typical BOD content of agricultural wastes

Type of waste BOD5 content(mg l-1)

Silage effluent 30 000 – 80 000

Pig slurry 20 000 – 30 000

Cattle slurry 10 000 – 20 000

Potential impact on soil quality

Manures and slurries can contain high levels of PTEs, particularly zinc and copper. The heavymetal contents of a range of animal manures were measured from a number of farms to givean indication of ‘typical’ manure metal concentrations in England and Wales. The metalcontent of livestock feed from the same sample of farms were also measured. A total of 85manure samples and 270 feed samples were analysed (Table O13) (Chambers et al 1998).

Table O13 Median dry matter and heavy metal concentrations (mg kg-1 ds) in animalmanures in England and Wales (Chambers et al 1998)

Waste type No DM(%)

Zn Cu Ni Pb Cr As Cd

Dairy FYM 6 16 145 31.4 2.8 2.24 2.58 1.15 0.42

Beef FYM 12 21 63 15.6 2.1 1.4 1.5 0.71 0.14

Pig FYM 7 21 387 346 5 2.83 1.87 0.73 0.68

Dairy slurry 20 7 176 51 5.5 4.79 5.13 1.09 0.2

Beef slurry 8 13 132 30.9 3.3 5.8 2.62 0.98 0.22

Pig slurry 12 3 403 364 7.8 <1 2.44 1.33 0.3

Broiler/turkeylitter

12 56 403 92.4 4.9 2.94 7.53 0.75 0.38

Layer manure 8 37 423 65.6 6.1 9.77 4.79 0.45 1.03


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

521

The metal concentrations were adjusted to more ‘typical’ manure dry matter content, typicalrates of straw or woodship addition to excreta to calculate the heavy metal loading rates(Table O14). Heavy metal loading was calculated using farm census data on animal numbers,best estimates of manure production and manure metal concentrations. As the pig industry islocated in two main areas in England and Wales; East Anglia and Humberside), these are theareas where soil metal accumulation is likely to be occurring at the greatest rates.

Table O14 Estimated typical heavy metals loading rates (kg ha-1) from animalmanures applied at 250 kg ha-1 total N

Waste type Drymatter

(%)

Total N(kg t-1

or m3)

Zn Cu Ni Pb Cr As Cd

Cattle FYM 25 6 0.7 0.2 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01 <0.01

Pig FYM 25 7 2.1 1.5 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.01 <0.01

Dairy slurry 10 4.5 0.9 0.3 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.01 <0.01

Beef slurry 10 3.5 1.2 0.3 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.02 <0.01

Pig slurry 10 7 2.3 1.7 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.01 <0.01

Broiler/turkeylitter

60 29 1.1 0.2 0.02 0.02 0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Layer manure 30 15 2.9 0.5 0.05 0.05 0.03 <0.01 0.01

Odour nuisance and Potential impacts on air quality

Pig and poultry farms produce the most complaints about odour (SOAEFD 1997). The storageof farm of such wastes can also cause problems if the wastes turn anaerobic and gives rise tostrong odour when the crust is broken.

Ammonia volatilisation is generally the major loss pathway for manure N following landapplication. Typically 65% of N-NH4 of FYM and 35% of N-NH4 + uric acid of poultry manureare lost through ammonia volatilisation following land application (Chambers et al 1998). Soilincorporation can be very effective but it must be done rapidly, i.e. within hours or via injectionif a significant reduction in losses is to be achieved. The dry matter content has a largeinfluence on ammonia losses from surface application of slurries and other liquid manures.Ammonia losses during the spreading of manures and slurries can be very high particularlywhen waste is applied in spring or summer when all the ammonium nitrogen can be lost(Aitken 1996). It is estimated that of the total of 70,000 tonnes of ammonia emitted in Scotlandevery year from agriculture, excretion during grazing is the largest source (c. 24 500 t yr-1),followed by emissions during spreading (c.21 000 t yr-1) and storage of wastes (c. 14 000 t yr-

1) (Aitken 1996). Poultry produce substantially more ammonia than pigs and cattle (SOAEFD1997).

Emissions of nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane (CH4) following landspreading of manureswere estimated in the UK by measurements and by using literature values. The emissionsfrom landspreading of these two greenhouse gases are mainly from cattle manures (Table


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

522

O15) (Chadwick et al 1998). Emission from landspreading are relatively small, around 0.5 ktCH4 and 1.11 kt N2O respectively representing less than 0.1 % of CH4 emissions and 5.3% oftotal N2O emissions from farming (Table O16) (Chadwick et al 1998).

The total emission of nitrous oxide estimated by Chadwick et al (1998) is in the range ofprevious studies but much lower than the inventory of Armstrong-Brown et al (1996) of 103 ktN2O indicating that largest N2O emission were from land applications of manures. Themethane emission is subject to variation due to change in diet and animal variation.

Table O15 N2O and CH4 emissions following manure spreading in the UK (Chadwicket al 1998)

Animal type Store type CH4 emission(kt)

N2O emission(kt)

Cattle Solid manure 0.2 0.52

Slurry 0.1 0.3

Sheep Solid manure <0.1 0.03

Pig Solid manure 0.2 0.03

Slurry <0.1 0.13

Poultry Solid manure <0.1 0.10

Deer Solid manure <0.1 <0.01

Total 0.5 1.11

CH4 methaneN2O nitrous oxide

Table O16 N2O and CH4 emissions by farm management in the UK (Chadwick et al1998)

Component CH4 emission(kt)

% of total CH4

lossN2O emission

(kt)% of total N2O

loss

Housing 371.3 44 4.99 23.6

Storage 42 4.9 5.65 26.8

Land application 0.5 <0.1 1.11 5.3

Fertiliser 0 0 5.36 25.4

Outdoor livestock 431.6 51.1 3.98 18.9

Total 845.5 100 21.09 100

CH4 methaneN2O nitrous oxide

Potential impacts on animal and human health


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

523

Animal manures are applied without treatment and restrictions on the application to land ofagricultural wastes are less stringent than other wastes. They also represent a greater riskbecause of the large volumes compared with other wastes for possible contamination of meat,dairy products and vegetables. In many cases, manures and slurries are applied on the samefarm that they originated from. While this practice does not reduce the risk to humans or wildanimals, the resident animal population is likely to become re-infected.

Potential impacts on plant health

The risks associated with the application of agricultural and horticultural wastes are not welldocumented (The Scottish Office, pers. comm. 1998). Farm slurry is not perceived to be a riskto plant health because it usually takes place on the farm of origin. It is possible that potatocyst nematode may pass through the animal gut if it is present in feed and thus be present inslurry.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

524

Industrial waste

The data was obtained from the analysis of industrial waste materials carried out by ADAS forthe waste recycling contractor over a period of ten years and reported in Davis and Rudd(1998). Since these data are derived from a limited number of sources of these wastes in theUK, they may not be entirely representative but should provide a broad indication of thecomposition of the wastes. The number of samples analysed each year is shown below:

Year Number of samples analysed

1986 4

1987 43

1988 31

1989 63

1990 85

1991 94

1992 134

1993 126

1994 130

1995 136

1996 100


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

525


Abattoir wastes, especially waste blood can be expected to contain potentially beneficiallevels of nutrients, especially nitrogen, and may also have a high conductivity and fat content(Table O17). These wastes are potentially odorous. Waste stomach contents produced by theabattoir industry consist predominantly of partially digested feed or vegetable matter (TableO18). As with many other food processing industries, large volumes of wash waters (TableO19) are produced, and the term is often used to describe a wide range of low solid wastematerials. This category can contain dung and urine from animal holding areas and washingsfrom distribution vehicles.

Table O17 Blood and gut contents from abattoirs – blood (Davis and Rudd 1998)

Analyses No. ofsamples

Min Median Mean Max StandardDeviation

Total solids (%) 84 0.0 10.9 11.0 37.9 6.9

PH 84 5.3 6.6 6.6 10.3 0.7

N (kg m-3) 84 0.7 11.7 13.4 38.0 9.5

NH4N (kg m-3) 82 0.0 1.0 1.7 8.0 2.0

P2O5 (kg m-3) 84 0.0 0.8 1.3 11.9 1.6

K2O (kg m-3) 84 0.0 0.7 1.0 6.4 1.4

Mg (kg m-3) 84 0.0 0.0 0.03 0.3 0.1

Cu (mg kg-1) 54 0.3 1.6 3.2 34.1 5.9

Zn (mg kg-1) 73 1.0 6.1 12.8 87.2 19.0

Ni (mg kg-1) 83 <1.0 <1.0 0.4 5.7

Cd (mg kg-1) 82 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 0.68

Pb (mg kg-1) 83 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 10.0

Cr (mg kg-1) 80 <1.0 <1.0 0.3 3.2

Hg (mg kg-1) 79 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 10.24

BOD (mg l-1) 78 88 28 650 33 100 122 000 25 608


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

526

Table O18 Blood and gut contents from abattoirs - stomach contents (Davis andRudd 1998)



Total solids (%) 6 2.4 10.1 8.6 14.2 4.7

PH 6 5.2 6.5 6.3 7.6 0.9

N (kg m-3) 6 0.2 3.1 8.2 22.7 9.8

NH4N (kg m-3) 5 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.2

P2O5 (kg m-3) 6 0.0 1.5 1.5 2.9 0.9

K2O (kg m-3) 6 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.9 0.4

Mg (kg m-3) 6 0.0 0.0 0.03 0.1 0.1

Cu (mg kg-1) 5 0.8 1.2 2.4 7.5 2.9

Zn (mg kg-1) 6 2.4 4.1 9.0 34.1 12.4

Ni (mg kg-1) 6 <1.0 <1.0 0.8 4.6

Cd (mg kg-1) 6 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25

Pb (mg kg-1) 6 <1.0 <1.0 0.4 2.1

Cr (mg kg-1) 5 <1.0 0.15 0.2 <1.0

Hg (mg kg-1) 5 <0.01 <0.01 0.03 0.14

BOD (mg l-1) 6 6000 12 500 18 000 41 000 13 622


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

527

Table O19 Blood and gut contents from abattoirs - wash water (Davis and Rudd1998)



Total solids (%) 14 0.1 6.4 7.8 21.9 6.8

PH 14 3.7 6.1 6.1 7.6 1.0

N (kg m-3) 14 0.2 2.4 3.2 9.0 2.7

NH4N (kg m-3) 14 0.0 0.4 0.6 1.8 0.5

P2O5 (kg m-3) 14 0.0 1.2 1.3 2.9 1.0

K2O (kg m-3) 14 0.0 0.3 0.4 1.2 0.4

Mg (kg m-3) 14 0.0 0.0 0.04 0.3 0.1

Cu (mg kg-1) 12 1.0 1.7 2.1 5.5 1.4

Zn (mg kg-1) 13 1.8 9.5 18.4 115.0 29.7

Ni (mg kg-1) 14 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 4.35

Cd (mg kg-1) 14 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25

Pb (mg kg-1) 14 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.5

Cr (mg kg-1) 14 <1.0 <1.0 1.1 10.5

Hg (mg kg-1) 14 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.04

BOD (mg l-1) 14 899 12 650 23 000 86 900 27 121

There have been reports of water pollution incidents following application of exempt waste inScotland. It is SEPA’s experience that the application of exempt waste is seldom if evermatched to the crop nutrient requirement. Public concerns were high last year following astream pollution by abattoir waste injected into agricultural land in Lanarkshire. Another focusof concerns is the diminishing number of abattoirs and knackeries in Scotland. The recentclosure of knackeries in south west Scotland, for example, mean that fallen stock has to besent upto 70 miles to the nearest alternative facilities. The high cost involved is pushingfarmers towards burying fallen stock on farm, often in locations where water pollution risks arehigh because of adverse ground conditions.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

528

Waste Food and drink

Data available on quality of wastes produced by the food and drink sector are discussedbelow. A typical composition is presented in Table O20.

Vegetable wastes

The nature and origin of waste plant matter needs to be considered, in case diseased materialis present that could act as a source of infection for succeeding crops. Two particularexamples are:

• Haulms and tubers of potatoes infected with the potato blight fungus, Phytophthorainfestans. These must be burnt or disposed to landfill; and

• vegetable wastes, washing-waters and soil from farm and industrial washing, grading,packing and processing of imported vegetables should not be spread on agriculturalland. This is to prevent the introduction and spread of the notifiable Rhizomania diseaseof sugar beet and other beetroot and fodder beet crops. Provisions for the safetreatment and disposal of such wastes from imported vegetables are given in avoluntary code of practice (MAFF 1985). It is understood that this Code is being revised.The new Code will cover the safe disposal of waste arising from imported and domesticplant material. Under this Code it is recommended that, as a precautionary measure, allwaste should be treated if it is intended to spread it on agricultural land except where itis being returned to the field of origin. These precautionary measures are recommendedin order to prevent the spread of a number of pests and diseases such as potato brownrot and Colorado beetle as well as Rhizomania. The Code was issued for publicconsultation in June 1995. It is understood that the title is to be ‘Code of Practice for theSafe Disposal of Agricultural and Horticultural Waste’ and is to be released by MAFF in1997.

Dairy wastes

The effluent generated from dairies primarily arises from washing. Its composition ispresented in Table O21. If treated, sludge produced has a high nutrient and organic mattercontent. About 90% of the milk used for cheese-making ends up as whey, a watery wastecontaining proteins and lactose (Table O22).

Soft drinks wastes

Soft drink wastes composition is given in Table O23.

Brewery wastes

Brewery effluent tends to have a high COD content due to soluble sugars, starches, alcoholand proteins in the wort, beer and yeast (Table O24). The COD of these products are typicallyover 100 000 mg l-1. The main sources of undissolved solids in brewery effluent are grainswashed from the floor, trub, yeast and ullage.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

529

Table O20 Waste food, drink or materials used in or resulting from the preparation offood or drink – general (Davis and Rudd 1998)



Total solids (%) 365 0.1 4.6 8.2 90.7 11.3

PH 364 2.8 5.6 5.8 12.8 1.7

N (kg m-3) 365 0.0 1.6 3.5 31.2 4.8

NH4N (kg m-3) 316 0.0 0.1 0.5 7.6 1.0

P2O5 (kg m-3) 349 0.0 0.7 1.2 13.8 1.8

K2O (kg m-3) 365 0.0 0.2 1.1 157.2 8.4

Mg (kg m-3) 356 0.0 0.0 0.1 5.6 0.4

Cu (mg kg-1) 261 <1.0 1.2 3.8 78.4 2.3

Zn (mg kg-1) 262 <1.0 5.05 1.4 336 5.4

Ni (mg kg-1) 362 <1.0 0.005 0.9 57.0

Cd (mg kg-1) 362 <0.25 <0.25 0.1 10.3

Pb (mg kg-1) 329 <1.0 <1.0 0.7 30.8

Cr (mg kg-1) 280 <1.0 <1.0 1.4 57.0

Hg (mg kg-1) 269 <0.01 <0.01 0.06 8.0

BOD (mg l-1) 339 1 11 700 23 000 260 000 33 753


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

530

Table O21 Food, drink or materials used in or resulting from the preparation of foodor drink - dairy wastes (Davis and Rudd 1998)



Total solids (%) 54 0.2 3.7 5.3 23.7 5.5

PH 54 3.0 5.6 5.6 10.9 1.4

N (kg m-3) 54 0.0 1.0 2.1 26.0 3.8

NH4N (kg m-3) 46 0.0 0.1 0.3 3.8 0.7

P2O5 (kg m-3) 54 0.0 0.8 0.9 3.1 0.7

K2O (kg m-3) 54 0.0 0.2 0.5 6.6 1.0

Mg (kg m-3) 54 0.0 0.0 0.05 0.4 0.1

Cu (mg kg-1) 32 0.0 1.4 2.4 15.8 3.4

Zn (mg kg-1) 44 0.1 3.7 1.7 209.0 39.8

Ni (mg kg-1) 53 <1.0 <1.0 0.3 3.7

Cd (mg kg-1) 53 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 0.5

Pb (mg kg-1) 48 <1.01 <1.0 5.8 250

Cr (mg kg-1) 44 <1.0 <1.0 0.4 8.9

Hg (mg kg-1) 40 <0.01 <0.01 <0.0106 0.14

BOD (mg l-1) 48 250 11 250 31 000 260 000 51 213

Table O22 Typical composition of whey

Analyses Composition (%)

Water 93.7

Lactose 4.5

Protein 0.8

Ash 0.75

Other solids 0.15

Fat 0.1


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

531

Table O23 Waste food, drink or materials used in or resulting from the preparation offood or drink - soft drinks (Davis and Rudd 1998)



Total solids (%) 11 0.7 3.9 4.9 16.2 4.9

PH 11 2.6 4.4 4.7 8.0 1.8

N (kg m-3) 11 0.0 0.3 1.3 7.2 2.2

NH4N (kg m-3) 11 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.9 0.3

P2O5 (kg m-3) 11 0.0 0.2 0.8 4.2 1.3

K2O (kg m-3) 11 0.0 0.0 0.4 3.8 1.1

Mg (kg m-3) 11 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.2

Cu (mg kg-1) 11 <1.0 0.13 1.1 6.0

Zn (mg kg-1) 11 <1.0 0.34 3.0 14.2

Ni (mg kg-1) 11 <1.0 <1.0 0.17 0.75

Cd (mg kg-1) 11 <0.25 <0.25 <1.0 0.06

Pb (mg kg-1) 11 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.07

Cr (mg kg-1) 11 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.34

Hg (mg kg-1) 11 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.04

BOD (mg l-1) 10 300 4250 4505 8500 3463


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

532

Table O24 Waste food, drink or materials used in or resulting from the preparation offood or drink - brewing wastes (Davis and Rudd 1998)



Total solids (%) 80 0.0 6.6 9.2 49.2 9.1

PH 80 2.3 5.0 5.8 - 4.5

N (kg m-3) 80 0.0 2.1 3.9 45.5 6.4

NH4N (kg m-3) 78 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.9 0.3

P2O5 (kg m-3) 80 0.0 0.8 1.7 22.0 3.3

K2O (kg m-3) 80 0.0 0.2 0.6 4.6 1.0

Mg (kg m-3) 80 0.0 0.0 0.2 7.0 1.0

Cu (mg kg-1) 45 0.2 3.7 3.1 314.0 78.1

Zn (mg kg-1) 64 0.2 3.8 9.9 163.0 22.4

Ni (mg kg-1) 80 <1.0 <1.0 2.4 154

Cd (mg kg-1) 80 <0.25 <0.25 0.03 1.1

Pb (mg kg-1) 78 <1.0 <1.0 1.3 63

Cr (mg kg-1) 78 <1.0 <1.0 3.2 78

Hg (mg kg-1) 78 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 0.65

BOD (mg l-1) 74 1000 11 750 18 000 92 100 19 539


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

533

Waste wood, bark or other plant matter

Some operational analyses are given in Table O25 Waste wood and bark are inherently freefrom animal pathogens and those likely to be of concern to food crops.

Table O25 Waste wood bark or other matter (Davis and Rudd 1998)



Total solids (%) 3 1.0 38.7 31.5 54.9 27.7

pH 3 4.1 5.0 5.8 8.4 2.3

N (kg m-3) 3 0.0 2.5 4.0 9.5 4.9

NH4N (kg m-3) 3 0.0 0.0 0.8 2.5 1.4

P2O5 (kg m-3) 3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.3

K2O (kg m-3) 3 0.0 0.2 0.6 1.5 0.8

Mg (kg m-3) 3 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.0 0.6

Cu (mg kg-1) 2 3.1 4.8 4.8 6.4 2.3

Zn (mg kg-1) 2 14.6 18.5 18.5 22.3 5.4

Ni (mg kg-1) 3 <1 <1 0.3 <1

Cd (mg kg-1) 2 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25

Pb (mg kg-1) 3 <1 3.6 2.4 3.7

Cr (mg kg-1) 3 <1 <1 3.3 9.9

Hg (mg kg-1) 3 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

BOD (mg l-1) 2 3000 5500 5500 8000 3536


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

534

Paper waste sludge, waste paper and de-inked paper sludge

The stock used to generate fibre will influence the production processes used and thewastewater generated and thus the sludge. The quality of paper sludge is summarised inTable O26.

Table O26 Paper waste sludge, waste paper and de-inked paper pulp (Davis andRudd 1998)



Total solids (%) 25 1.7 21.6 21.4 65.1 16.2

pH 25 4.9 7.2 6.9 9.4 1.0

N (kg m-3) 25 0.0 0.3 0.9 4.5 1.1

NH4N (kg m-3) 24 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.3 0.1

P2O5 (kg m-3) 25 0.0 0.1 0.4 2.0 0.5

K2O (kg m-3) 25 0.0 0.1 0.2 1.5 0.3

Mg (kg m-3) 25 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.2

Cu (mg kg-1) 23 2.0 12.7 32.8 349.0 72.2

Zn (mg kg-1) 24 1.3 13.8 29.4 157.0 38.2

Ni (mg kg-1) 25 <1.0 1.02 1.3 8.7

Cd (mg kg-1) 25 <0.25 <0.25 0.02 0.5

Pb (mg kg-1) 24 <1.0 0.45 1.7 14.8

Cr (mg kg-1) 24 <1.0 1.50 2.4 16.07

Hg (mg kg-1) 24 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.03

BOD (mg l-1) 19 18 1100 1800 1600 2020

Aitken et al. (1995) have given an account of effects on soil fertility from applying paper millsludge to agricultural land based on field experiments established in North Wales in 1991. Thesludge used was de-ink paper sludge (DPMS). Paper sludge such as DPMS is largelycellulose and ash (clay and calcium carbonate) with high C/N ratio. This can causeimmobilisation of soil N when it is incorporated into the soil and hence crop N deficiency. Thefindings of Aitken et al (1995) showed that losses in yield due to DPMS could be minimised inthe first year by applying 40 kg N ha-1 of fertiliser N per 100 t ha-1 DPMS. Results indicatedthat DPMS immobilised very little or no N in the second year after application. Visual studiesof the soil profile two years after application indicated that DPMS had degraded satisfactorilyin the soil even at a rate of application of 300 t DPMS ha-1. Phillips et al. (1997) described theresults of field trials at Silsoe with wheat and grass plots which received 5 to 20 t dm ha-1 ofpaper mill sludge in each of three successive years. All plots received normal fertiliserdressings throughout the trial. In most cases, topsoil condition, as assessed by thepercentage content of organic carbon, was significantly improved (by about 0.5%) as a resultof paper mill sludge application over 3 years. Other measures of soil physical conditionssuggested the benefit would be greater on clay soils than sandy soils. It was thought that the


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

535

case for landspreading of paper mill sludge rested mainly on potential improvements in soilcondition from which increases in crop yield might perhaps follow from successiveapplications over a number of years. Such a benefit ought in due course to be particularlyevident in very dry seasons.

Aitken et al. (1995) recommended that because of the variable nature of paper sludge fromdifferent mills, each product should be subject to investigation before being recycled toagricultural land.

Leather and tannery industry

Results of operational analyses are given in Table O27.

Table O27 Waste hair and effluent treatment sludge from a tannery (Davis and Rudd1998)



Total solids (%) 3 0.9 2.2 6.1 15.0 7.8

PH 3 6.5 6.6 6.7 7.0 0.3

N (kg m-3) 3 2.2 3.6 - 3.7 0.8

NH4N (kg m-3) 2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0

P2O5 (kg m-3) 3 0.0 0.4 - 0.6 0.3

K2O (kg m-3) 3 0.0 0.7 - 1.0 0.5

Mg (kg m-3) 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Cu (mg kg-1) 3 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.6

Zn (mg kg-1) 3 2.8 9.2 - 10.2 4.0

Ni (mg kg-1) 3 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 0.84

Cd (mg kg-1) 3 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 0.04

Pb (mg kg-1) 3 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 2.1

Cr (mg kg-1) 2 169.0 237.0 - 305.0

Hg (mg kg-1) 2 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

BOD (mg l-1) 3 560 2000 6000 15 500 8241


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

536

Textile

The primary textile industries generate large quantities of waste from washing. The washwater also often contains large quantities of waste wool, ‘dags’ containing animal excrement,grease and suint (potash-rich animal residue). For results of operational analyses see TablesO28 and O29.

Table O28 Textile waste - Dyers and bleachers (Davis and Rudd 1998)



Total solids (%) 37 0.7 3.8 6.4 43.7 7.7

PH 37 4.6 6.7 6.9 12.1 1.4

N (kg m-3) 37 0.0 1.9 7.3 171.0 27.8

NH4N (kg m-3) 32 0.0 0.2 5.3 164.0 29.0

P2O5 (kg m-3) 33 0.0 0.7 1.2 6.2 1.5

K2O (kg m-3) 37 0.0 0.1 0.3 2.8 0.5

Mg (kg m-3) 37 0.0 0.1 0.7 14.6 2.5

Cu (mg kg-1) 32 0.5 9.6 27.5 243.0 53.7

Zn (mg kg-1) 35 1.4 10.5 17.2 80.0 19.2

Ni (mg kg-1) 36 <1.0 0.12 0.8 4.7

Cd (mg kg-1) 36 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 0.5

Pb (mg kg-1) 32 <1.0 0.51 2.5 20.3

Cr (mg kg-1) 28 <1.0 0.30 10.7 123

Hg (mg kg-1) 28 <0.01 <0.01 0.08 0.94

BOD (mg l-1) 34 500 3500 10 000 94 000 19 617


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

537

Table O29 Textile waste - Wool scourers (Davis and Rudd 1998)



Total solids (%) 3 7.7 54.8 45.1 72.8 33.6

PH 3 2.8 6.8 5.5 6.9 2.3

N (kg m-3) 3 1.9 2.4 2.6 3.4 0.8

NH4N (kg m-3) 3 0.0 0.0 0.03 0.1 0.1

P2O5 (kg m-3) 3 0.0 0.2 0.5 1.2 0.6

K2O (kg m-3) 3 0.6 3.6 - 4.0 1.9

Mg (kg m-3) 3 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.2 0.6

Cu (mg kg-1) 3 1.7 9.6 7.5 11.3 5.1

Zn (mg kg-1) 3 12.0 13.2 29.1 62.0 28.5

Ni (mg kg-1) 3 0.5 5.2 - 5.6 2.9

Cd (mg kg-1) 3 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25

Pb (mg kg-1) 3 1.3 1.3 3.3 7.2 33.6

Cr (mg kg-1) 2 1.5 8.6 8.6 15.7 10.0

Hg (mg kg-1) 2 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

BOD (mg l-1) 3 284 11 000 9400 17 000 8468


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

538

Basic organic chemical industry

Table O30 Non-exempt wastes – Ammonia (Davis and Rudd 1998)



Total solids (%) 9 0.0 1.8 8.1 38.3 13.6

PH 9 1.5 8.4 8.6 12.2 3.4

N (kg m-3) 9 0.7 21.0 25.2 64.3 20.7

NH4N (kg m-3) 9 0.0 21.0 22.2 46.1 16.7

P2O5 (kg m-3) 9 0.0 0.0 4.3 37.8 12.6

K2O (kg m-3) 9 0.0 0.0 0.12 0.7 0.2

Mg (kg m-3) 9 0.0 0.0 0.04 0.2 0.1

Cu (mg kg-1) 9 <1.0 2.5 3.8 18.4

Zn (mg kg-1) 9 <1.0 3.1 4.8 17.7

Ni (mg kg-1) 9 <1.0 <1.0 0.3 1.7

Cd (mg kg-1) 9 <0.25 <0.25 0.2 0.98

Pb (mg kg-1) 9 <1.0 <1.0 2.2 19.3

Cr (mg kg-1) 9 <1.0 <1.0 2.8 25.3

Hg (mg kg-1) 8 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

BOD (mg l-1) 6 11 33 225 7200 28 000 10 437


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

539

Table O31 Non-exempt wastes - Ammonium sulphate (Davis and Rudd 1998)



Total solids (%) 6 2.3 32.7 - 49.9 21.5

PH 6 4.3 7.7 - 9.1 1.7

N (kg m-3) 6 6.3 56.7 57.2 107.0 45.5

NH4N (kg m-3) 6 1.5 46.4 46.7 98.8 43.2

P2O5 (kg m-3) 6 0.0 0.0 0.03 0.1 0.1

K2O (kg m-3) 6 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.2

Mg (kg m-3) 6 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1

Cu (mg kg-1) 6 <1.0 0.24 0.61 2.2

Zn (mg kg-1) 6 <1.0 0.5 0.86 2.8

Ni (mg kg-1) 6 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.0

Cd (mg kg-1) 6 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25

Pb (mg kg-1) 6 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

Cr (mg kg-1) 6 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

Hg (mg kg-1) 6 <0.01 <0.01 0.10 0.62

BOD (mg l-1) 5 5 200 11 000 33 000 15 517


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

540

Pharmaceutical industry

Some analyses are given in Table O32 which shows that these materials can containbeneficial amounts of plant nutrients.

Table O32 Non-exempt wastes – Pharmaceutical (Davis and Rudd 1998)



Total solids (%) 24 0.9 4.6 9.0 52.1 11.6

pH 24 3.7 6.4 - 10.5 1.5

N (kg m-3) 24 0.0 3.7 4.6 17.5 4.3

NH4N (kg m-3) 24 0.0 0.3 1.5 16.9 3.5

P2O5 (kg m-3) 23 0.0 0.6 0.7 2.9 0.7

K2O (kg m-3) 24 0.0 0.2 0.3 1.7 0.4

Mg (kg m-3) 24 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.6 0.3

Cu (mg kg-1) 12 0.0 2.3 3.5 12.7 3.8

Zn (mg kg-1) 23 0.5 5.2 6.3 19.5 4.4

Ni (mg kg-1) 24 <1.0 <1.0 0.5 3.4

Cd (mg kg-1) 24 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25

Pb (mg kg-1) 24 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 2.6

Cr (mg kg-1) 24 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 7.6

Hg (mg kg-1) 24 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.09

BOD (mg l-1) 23 400 12 200 17 000 88 800 19 480


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

541

Waste lime and waste gypsum

These two waste descriptions are separated into two different categories in WMLR 1994 butare sufficiently similar to consider collectively. The categories cover all sources of lime otherthan that produced in the food processing industry. The two biggest producers are cementmanufacture and gas processing, although the salt industry produces significant quantities ofwaste lime and gypsum.

These wastes, by virtue of their chemical nature and origin are inherently pathogen-free. Limeand lime sludges have pH values of 10 -12+ and are therefore self-disinfecting, as long as thishigh pH value is maintained.

Some operational analyses are given in Tables O33 and O35.

Table O33 Waste lime (David and Rudd 1998)



Total solids (%) 21 0.0 31.6 33.0 76.8 23.0

PH 21 4.6 8.2 9.2 13.1 2.9

N (kg m-3) 21 0.0 0.6 1.6 15.0 3.2

NH4N (kg m-3) 21 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.5 0.5

P2O5 (kg m-3) 21 0.0 0.4 1.7 12.0 3.3

K2O (kg m-3) 21 0.0 0.3 2.2 21.0 4.8

Mg (kg m-3) 21 0.0 1.1 4.4 55.0 11.8

Cu (mg kg-1) 16 0.4 6.7 9.9 26.2 8.8

Zn (mg kg-1) 17 2.1 14.4 35.9 270.0 65.7

Ni (mg kg-1) 10 0.7 2.3 3.0 8.5 2.4

Cd (mg kg-1) 20 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 2.47

Pb (mg kg-1) 20 <1.0 <1.0 1.2 6.97

Cr (mg kg-1) 17 <1.0 2.5 38.5 614

Hg (mg kg-1) 20 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.02

BOD (mg l-1) 19 5 3000 9700 59 700 15 824


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

542

Table O34 Lime sludge from cement manufacture or gas processing (Davis andRudd 1998)



Total solids (%) 9 2.9 15.3 36.2 100.0 38.1

PH 9 6.5 12.0 11.1 12.5 2.1

N (kg m-3) 9 0.0 0.0 0.4 2.5 0.9

NH4N (kg m-3) 8 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.3 0.5

P2O5 (kg m-3) 9 0.0 0.3 0.4 1.5 0.5

K2O (kg m-3) 9 0.0 0.7 2.6 16.9 5.5

Mg (kg m-3) 9 0.0 0.8 3.9 18.0 6.2

Cu (mg kg-1) 9 0.3 2.0 12.7 46.0 16.8

Zn (mg kg-1) 8 0.2 38.9 44.4 153.0 50.1

Ni (mg kg-1) 8 0.1 4.1 5.8 25.0 8.0

Cd (mg kg-1) 9 <0.25 <0.25 1.0 8.0

Pb (mg kg-1) 7 0.0 2.0 145 1000.0 377.0

Cr (mg kg-1) 7 0.5 8.8 10.7 31.5 10.1

Hg (mg kg-1) 8 0.5 8.8 0.5 3.5

BOD (mg l-1) 4 95 1400 1224 2000 868


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

543

Table O35 Waste gypsum (Davis and Rudd 1998)



Total solids (%) 12 8.7 52.7 47.6 78.3 21.7

PH 12 5.5 9.4 9.4 12.4 2.6

N (kg m-3) 12 0.0 0.0 2.3 27.5 7.9

NH4N (kg m-3) 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

P2O5 (kg m-3) 12 0.0 0.0 0.4 2.2 0.7

K2O (kg m-3) 12 0.0 0.0 0.4 2.0 0.7

Mg (kg m-3) 12 0.0 0.4 1.0 6.0 1.7

Cu (mg kg-1) 9 1.2 9.2 12.0 31.8 10.8

Zn (mg kg-1) 12 2.4 7.5 124.0 1075.0 310.3

Ni (mg kg-1) 10 1.0 1.9 32.5 144.0 52.4

Cd (mg kg-1) 4 0.1 0.1 1.4 5.0 2.5

Pb (mg kg-1) 10 1.3 10.2 53.0 404.0 124.5

Cr (mg kg-1) 11 1.6 3.1 51.0 466.0 138.5

Hg (mg kg-1) 2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.9

BOD (mg l-1) 10 2 300 770 2000 904


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

544

Drinking water preparation

The sludge is composed of the impurities removed and precipitated from the water togetherwith the residues of any treatment chemical used. Waterworks sludge can be broadlyclassified either as coagulant, natural, groundwater or softening sludge. The types andcharacteristics of waterworks sludge produced depend on the water treatment process andraw water quality. Typical composition of alum and ferric coagulant sludge is given inTable O36 while results from analyses carried out on waterworks recycled to land is given inTable O37.

Table O36 Typical composition of coagulant sludge in the UK (Dillon 1997)

Parameter Alum sludge Ferric sludge

Total solids (td) (% w/w) 0.1-27 1.85-17.6

Volatile solids (% of ts) 10-35 -

Suspended solids (% of ts) 75-99 -

pH 5.5-7.5 -

BOD (mg/l) 30-6000 92-329

COD (mg/l) 500-27000 9110-68900

Aluminum (% of ts) 4-11* 4.5-10.5

Iron (% of ts) 6.5* 19-38

Manganese (% of ts) <0.005-5 0.06-0.81

Arsenic (% of ts) <0.04 0.001-0.002

Cadmium (% of ts) <0.005 <0.0001-0.0006

Chromium (% of ts) - <0.0002-0.0125

Copper (% of ts) - 0.003-0.0087

Lead (% of ts) - 0.0013-0.0084

Mercury (% of ts) - <0.00005-0.00006

Nickel (% of ts) - 0.0018-0.0125

Zinc (% of ts) - 0.011-0.086

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (mgN/l) 0.7-1200 186-1440

Phosphate (mgP/l) 0.3-300 0.34-6.22

Total plate count (no./ml) 30-30000 -


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

545

Table O37 Non-exempt wastes- water treatment sludge (Davis and Rudd 1998)



Total solids (%) 8 2.4 8.5 20.8 55.7 21.8

pH 8 4.4 5.0 5.4 7.0 1.0

N (kg m-3) 8 0.8 2.0 2.3 9.0 2.7

NH4N (kg m-3) 7 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.1 0.0

P2O5 (kg m-3) 8 0.0 1.1 1.5 5.5 1.8

K2O (kg m-3) 8 0.0 0.8 0.9 2.3 0.9

Mg (kg m-3) 8 0.0 0.2 0.6 2.0 0.8

Cu (mg kg-1) 8 3.1 11.0 13.3 34.7 10.1

Zn (mg kg-1) 8 3.8 21.3 29.3 78.7 28.3

Ni (mg kg-1) 8 0.5 3.5 6.1 17.1 6.2

Cd (mg kg-1) 7 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.1

Pb (mg kg-1) 7 2.8 8.1 17.4 50.1 19.4

Cr (mg kg-1) 6 0.1 5.2 9.9 27.9 11.5

Hg (mg kg-1) 6 <0.01 0.02 0.03 0.09

BOD (mg l-1) 5 100 3000 6020 19 000 7563

Waterworks sludge is not specifically exempt from current waste licensing regulations whichrequire generally that any application of waste to land should result in benefit to agriculture orother ecological improvement. Potential benefits of using waterworks sludge include itsreported pH buffering capacity, soil conditioning properties and capacity to adsorb heavymetals (Dillon 1997).

Such benefit might be more easily demonstrated for softening sludges, which might be usedfor liming of agricultural land, and natural sludges, which might contain appreciable quantitiesof plant nutrients and organic material, than for coagulant sludges. Benefits resulting from theapplication to land of coagulant sludges are less easily demonstrated and there are someconcerns about potential adverse effects on plant growth, concentrations of heavy metals andaluminium, and possible contamination of surface or groundwaters (Dillon 1997).

Concentrations of heavy metals in coagulant sludges are usually smaller than in sewagesludges applied to agricultural land and would therefore be unlikely to cause problems.Concentrations of aluminium and iron would be greater in waterworks sludges, but neither isincluded in the list of potentially toxic elements (PTEs) in the Code of Practice for the use ofsewage sludge in agriculture. The accumulation of aluminium or iron due to extendedapplications of sludge would not be expected to cause any serious problems (Dillon et al,1996). Nevertheless, it is understood that agricultural advisors in Scotland have concerns thataluminium-rich waterworks sludge applied to acid soils could have a deleterious effect on thegrowth of barley in particular if the soil pH falls below pH 5.5 (Young et al, 1997).


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

546

It is reported that aluminium and iron hydroxides in coagulant sludges can adsorb solublephosphorus and reduce its availability to plants, adversely affecting growth. However, co-application with sewage sludge or the addition of supplemental phosphorus to the soil wouldeliminate or reduce this effect, if necessary. Trials carried out at WRc (Dillon et al, 1996)investigated the possible land application of coagulant sludges conditioned with lime or mixedwith sewage sludge. Conditioning of waterworks sludge with lime appeared to be technicallyfeasible and addition of lime-treated sludge to an acidic soil was shown to increase plantgrowth compared to plants grown in unamended soils. The resultant increase in soil pHappeared to more than compensate for any decrease in availability of phosphorus andleaching of aluminium from acidic soil amended with alum sludge was negligible at typicalagricultural soil pH values. The addition of waterworks/sewage sludge to an organic-rich soilwas shown to increase plant growth compared to plants grown in unamended soils althoughplant growth was greatest in soils amended with sewage sludge only. The main effect of thewaterworks sludge was to reduce the concentrations of plant nutrients.

The application of waterworks sludge to forest lands has been investigated in severalcountries. In one US study, liquid alum sludge was applied to deciduous and coniferousforested land. One year after the initial application, it was concluded that the alum sludge hadno adverse effects on tree growth or nutrient uptake in the short term. However, because ofthe slow growth rate of trees, measurements would need to continue for many years beforeconclusions regarding long-term effects could be drawn (Dillon 1997).


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

547

Dredgings industry

Some analysis of dredgings from a 100 km length of canal are given in Table O38.

Table O38 Analysis of dredgings from a 100 km length of canal (Davis and Rudd1998)

Parameter Mean Minimum Maximum

Solids air dried (%) 23.2 7.8 63.2Loss on ignition (%) 24.5 6 44PH 6.7 5.4 7.6(total) antimony (mg kg-1) 10.0 0 146(total) arsenic (mg kg-1) 47.4 9 873(total) cyanide (mg kg-1) 0.6 0 2.6(total) lead (mg kg-1) 408.9 22 8275(total) mercury (mg kg-1) 83.0 0.1 1570.7(total) molybdenum (mg kg-1) 1.6 0 7.1(total) nickel (mg kg-1) 79.3 34 204(total) PAH (mg kg-1) 16.1 0 203(total) phenols (mg kg-1) 23.4 2.11 292(total) phosphorus (%) 0.5 0.17 2.51(total) barium (mg kg-1) 243.8 38.6 731(total) beryllium (mg kg-1) 1.8 0.8 9.7(total) boron (mg kg-1) 45.0 9.9 172(avail) boron (mg kg-1) 9.2 1.16 37.4(total) cadmium (mg kg-1) 2.2 0 21(total) chromium (mg kg-1) 159.7 25 4011(total) cobalt (mg kg-1) 36.4 15 94(total) copper (mg kg-1) 136.8 26 1357(total) selenium (mg kg-1) 3.7 0.1 23.1(total) silver (mg kg-1) 0.1 0 23.1(total) sulphide (mg kg-1) 1805.1 0 6330(total) tin (mg kg-1) 33.2 9.7 278(total) thallium (mg kg-1) 0.1 0 5.2(total) tungsten (mg kg-1) 0.0 0 0(total) vanadium (mg kg-1) 68.7 37.8 104(total) zinc (mg kg-1) 958.1 154 6671

(the median values were not available)


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

548


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

549

O7 RECOMMENDATIONS

England and Wales

The Exemptions for landspreading are being revised. Different points of concerns have beenaddressed by the Environment Agency and are summarised below.

The Agency accepts that there must be a nominated list of waste types as required by theWaste Framework Directive but the Agency has two points of concern: the list is inflexible andit is not possible to consider the recovery of other wastes which are not included there is anopen and regular review process of the list. It also means that if a waste is included on the list,there can be an assumption that the material will always be beneficial irrespective of the sitewhere it is applied. The Agency recommends that the benefit of the material will depend onsite specific factors as well as the composition of the waste.

The definition of agricultural benefit and ecological improvement should be included in theregulations. The Agency proposes a series of criteria which should be considered whenassessing the agricultural benefit of a waste. The Agency has also drafted a form detailing theinformation which should be submitted when pre-notifying the Agency of landspreadingoperation. At present, information within the Agency is not well co-ordinated between regionsand the use of a standard form would facilitate the enforcement of the regulations and thecollection of information received.

The Agency would require notification 3 weeks (15 working days) before the proposedspreading takes place. This would allow the Agency to evaluate properly the informationsupplied.

The Agency considers that, in some instances, the landspreading of waste on the countrysideor sites of special interest (such as SSSIs, National Parks, Nature Reserves, etc) is notappropriate. The Agency would need additional time to consider the exemption to consult therelevant organisations.

Currently a spreading activity may be registered with the Agency but never take place due toadverse conditions or operational difficulties. The Agency would like to see a requirement fora site completion note including details on actual date of spreading, the actual amount spreadand the area of land on which waste was spread.

The Agency wish to see that only competent operators are allow to carry out the spreadingactivity. It would require some sort of certification, or to rely on PQA more extensively.

The Agency recommends that secure and appropriate methods and location of storage beused for waste prior to landspreading.

The Agency is concerned about some cases where paper sludge may have been/be spreadwith less consideration of the environmental impact of such a use. The beneficial aspect ofusing paper sludge will depend largely on the site and in particular the soil type. The Agencyrecommends that paper sludge can be spread under the exemption only on sites wherebenefit result.

The Agency is concerned about the recovery of blood and gut contents from abattoir. It giverise to a large number of public complaints even where it is carried out in accordance with


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

550

existing codes of practice. It has also been reported that the risk of transmitting pathogensinto the food chain from abattoir waste is greater than the use of untreated sludge. TheAgency recommends that the list of exempt wastes be amended to include only treated bloodand gut contents from abattoirs.

The Agency feels that the term waste from biological treatment plants is too broad and opento interpretation. It recommends to make the term industry specific and exclude wastes fromother industries such as pharmaceutical and petroleum.

The Agency recommends to add certain material on the list of exempt wastes such as potablewater treatment sludge, bentonite and lairage and waste from equine premises.

Scotland

In their strategic review of organic waste spread on land (SEPA ?), SEPA identified andanalysed deficiencies in management of these wastes. These are listed below. They came upwith a preferred management option which is also presented below.

1. The current regulation of organic wastes spread on land is not consistent. Sewage sludgewhich is relatively homogeneous and represents 1% of the wastes going to land, is wellregulated with controls on the application of PTEs and land restrictions. Exempt wasteswhich are heterogeneous have few controls imposed on them once they have satisfied theconditions for exemption. This includes the undefined requirements of ‘agricultural benefit’and ‘ecological improvement’. Agricultural wastes representing 96% of the waste going toland are not controlled although guidances have been issued in the PEPFAA Code.

2. There is no statutory requirement for any farm where waste is being applied to have amanagement plan which records nutrient addition, PTEs and other contaminants.

3. There is no statutory requirement for any farm where waste is being applied to have anutrient management plan which look at nutrient application, soil conditions and croprequirements

4. As a result of lack of management, there is scope for loss of nutrients and environmentalimpacts on water resources.

5. The owner or occupier of the land does not have clear responsibility for the way his land isbeing used when exempt waste is applied for recycling. Many are passing thisresponsibility to the contractor bringing in the waste.

6. It is recognised by many that a more prescriptive approach is needed. Guidance is givenin non-statutory codes of practices which are not widely known or open to interpretation.

7. A shift of attitude of waste producers is needed as landspreading of exempt wastes isviewed as a cheap disposal option rather than a beneficial recycling. Little attempt is madeto manage the quality of the material because it is viewed as a waste and therefore has nomonetary value. This change in attitude is needed through the whole chain from producerto final recipient. Proper controls over the quality parameters, storage and handlingpractice is needed.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

551

8. Similar restrictions than stipulated for storage and handling of farm wastes should beapplied to exempt waste to ensure they do not cause problems. Placing the responsibilitywith the producer is in line with other waste management procedures.

9. There is no requirement for qualification for contractors applying wastes to land.Introduction of such a certificate would assist in raising standards and public confidence inthe practice

10. Exempt waste has to be notified only in general terms and agricultural waste is not notifiedor recorded. A single site could in theory be receiving wastes from a number of sources forwhich there is no centralised recording system. The issue of confidentially and liabilityshould be addressed.

11. There is no monitoring of exempt waste for microbiological quality and there is no land userestrictions. It is suggested that land restrictions for sewage sludge should be extended toall wastes spread on land.

12. SEPA does not have the power to serve enforcement notices to stop activities. It is only inthe event of pollution that SEPA can take action.

Recommendations for improving the current practices of landspreading of wastes are listedbelow:

1. Increased storage capacity at the producer site

2. Increased treatment of exempt waste

3. Clear definition of agricultural benefit or ecological improvement

4. Common statutory standards for all wastes

5. Certification of contractors

6. Incentive for Good Practices

It is recommended that the following wastes are not spread on land:

1. Blood and gut content from abattoirs;

2. Septic tank sludge

It is recommended that the following practices are prohibited:

1. Injection of wastes on land with field drains

2. Spreading outside daylight hours

3. Spreading in designated heritage sites.

In a leaflet published by SEPA on application of non-agricultural waste to land, the followingrecommendations are made:


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

552

• Do not spread more than 50 m3 ha-1 (4500 gallons/acre) or a level equating to the crop’snutrient requirement, whichever is lower;

• Give notice to SEPA before starting application;

• Prior to application, mil should be diluted at least 1:1 with water or mixed with slurry. Donot apply milk and dairy wastes on sites with a high risk of run-off (e.g. steeply slopingsites);

• When spreading vegetable washing onto land, ensure that this will not result in run-off towatercourses or field drain systems. To minimise the risk of transmitting plant diseases,vegetables imported into the UK must not be applied to farmland unless this operation hasreceived prior approval from SOAEFD;

• Farmers should ensure that land application of abattoir wastes would not cause any healthrisks. Should land application be deemed appropriate, blood and intestinal contents shouldbe diluted at least 1:1 with water before application. Applications should be soil injectedand should be restricted to land which is to be immediately ploughed afterwards to preventodour problems.

In brief, SEPA would like to see a consistent legislative framework introduced to cover landspreading of all organic wastes. The framework would incorporate relevant codes of practicewith statutory backing and would for the time offer clear definitions of agricultural benefit andecological improvement.

SEPA proposes to abandon the current pre-notification regime and to replace it by detailedrecords to be kept by waste producers/operators and landowners for auditing by SEPA.


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

553

REFERENCES

Aitken M A (1996) Ammonia volatilisation losses from agriculture. SAC paper.

Chambers BJ, Smith KA and Cross RB (1994) Effect of poultry manure application timing onnitrogen utilisation by cereal. In: Animal Waste Management (ed JE Hall) Proceedings of theSeventh Technical Consultation of the ESCORENA Network on Animal Waste Utilisation,REUR Technical Series 34, FAO Rome, pp 199-205.

Chambers BJ, Williams J and Smith KA (1996) Residual effect of poultry manure and fertilisernitrogen applications. In: Progress in Nitrogen Cycling Studies (eds O Van Cleemput et al).Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp 183-190.

Chambers BJ, Smith KA and Van der Weerden TJ (1998) Ammonia emissions following theland spreading of solid manures. In: Gaseous N Emissions from Grasslands (eds SC Jarvisand BF Pain), CAB International, pp 225-280.

Chambers BJ, Lord EI, Nicholson FA and Smith KA (1999) Predicting nitrogen availability andlosses following application of organic manures to arable land: MANNER. Soil Use andManagement, 15, pp 137-143.

Chambers BJ, Smith K and Pain B (1999) Strategies to encourage better use of nitrogen inanimal manures. In: Tackling Nitrate from Agriculture-Strategy from Science, pp 27-36, MAFF.

Davis RD and Rudd C (1998) Investigation of the criteria for and guidance on thelandspreading of industrial wastes. Final report to the Environment Agency. WRc report4088/7. Environment Agency R&D Technical Report P193.

Davis RD, Carrington EG, Gendebien A, Aitken MN, Fenlon D and Svoboda I (1999) A user’sguide to research on application of organic wastes to land. WRc report SR 4624/3.

Jackson DR and Smith KA (1997) Animal manure slurries as a source of nitrogen for cereals:effect of application time on efficiency. Soil Use and Management, 13, pp 75-81.

LQM (2000) Draft Technical Report on Estimating the arisings of specific waste streams.Environment Agency, WRc publications.

SEPA? Strategic review of organic waste spread on land. Scottish Environment ProtectionAgency

Dillon, G R, Hall, T, Sweet, N, Wolstenholme, R and Woods, V (1996). Novel methods for thetreatment and disposal of waterworks sludge: Final report. WRc Report No. PT1084.(Restricted distribution).

Dillon G (1997) Application guide to waterworks sludge treatment and disposal. WRc reportNo. TT016. (Restricted distribution).

Young, P, Woods, V, Palfrey, R and Davis, R (1997). The effects of waterworks and sewagesludge co-disposal on sewage treatment and recycling: A practical study at pilot scale. WRcReport No. PT2023. (Restricted distribution).


WRc Ref:CO4953-2/11768-1July 2001

554

CONTACTS

Name Organisation

Dr Nina Sweet Environment Agency, Head Office, Bristol

Mr Alan Bell Environment Agency, Head Office, BristolProject director of Waste arisings survey

Mr Neil Gillan Environment AgencyProject leader of Waste arisings survey

Dr Bob Gregory Land Quality Management, Nottingham unitMain sub-contractor for the Agency on Waste arisings survey

Dr Trevor Cumby Silsoe Research InstituteDirector of the ROSA Project

Mr Colin Rudd andRoger Unwin

ADAS

Dr Brian Chambers ADAS

Mrs June Lock MAFF

Mrs Helene Mc Dermott Food and Drinks Federation, London

Mr Ashwin Solanki British Sugar, Peterborough

The Paper Federation of Great Britain

Mr Mike Holt SNOWIE (contractor)

Mr Peter Dickinson Transorganics (contractor)

Other contractors

Mr StephanHenningsson

Environmental Management and Business Research Unit, University ofHertfordshireWaste minimisation project for Food Industries

Mrs Susan Backwarden AEA Technology - Best Practice Programme on Food and Drink Sector

Mrs Janet Mason Resource Centre for Access to Data on Europe (CADE), University ofDurham

See our publications catalogue at:http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/pubs/home.htm

European Commission

14K

H-40-01-424-E

N-N

OFFICE FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONSOF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

L-2985 Luxembourg

ISBN 92-894-1732-3

9 789289 41 7327

Survey of wastes spreadon land

Survey of wastes spread on land

Documents

Transcript of Survey of wastes spread on land