Interna'onal

 Best  Prac'ces  for  Pre-­‐

Processing  and  Co-­‐Processing  Municipal  
Solid  Waste  and  Sewage  Sludge  in  the  
Cement  Industry  
 
Presenter:    
Ali  Hasanbeigi,  Ph.D.  
 
Energy  Analysis  and  Environmental  Impacts  Department    
Environmental  Energy  Technologies  Division    
Lawrence  Berkeley  Na?onal  Laboratory    
 
 
Co-­‐authors:  Hongyou  Lu,  Christopher  Williams,  Lynn  Price  
 
Presenta'on  at  the  ECEEE  Summer  Study  in  Industry  
September  2012  
 
 
 Outline    

•  Background  

•  Co-­‐processing:  Part  of  the  Solu?on  to  Waste  Management  

•  Fundamentals  of  Co-­‐processing  MSW  and  Sewage  Sludge  

•  Technological  Aspects  of  Co-­‐processing  -­‐  Interna?onal  Best  Prac?ces    

•  Legal,  Regulatory,  and  Ins?tu?onal  Frameworks  for  Co-­‐processing  -­‐  

Interna?onal  Best  Prac?ces    

2  
 Background  

•  Cement  industry  accounts  for  approximately  5  %  of  current  

anthropogenic  CO2  emissions  worldwide  

•  Cement  demand  and  produc?on  are  increasing  (developing  countries)  

•  Another  important  issue/problem:  increasing  waste  accumula?on  in  

countries  around  the  world,  especially  in  developing  countries  where  
major  urbaniza?on  is  taking  place  

•  Many  developing  countries  are  ini?a?ng  programs  to  promote  co-­‐

processing  of  wastes  in  the  cement  industry  

3  
 Background  

Total  amount  of  MSW   MSW  genera'on  

Countries   genera'on  in  2005  (1,000   rate  (kg/capita/
tonnes)   day)  
Controlled Uncollected
landfill with basic Waste
sanitary facilities 30%
USA     222,863   2.05   24%

France     33,963   1.48  

Germany     49,563   1.64   Composting
1%
Denmark     3,900   2.03  
Switzerland     4,855   1.78  

Incineration
Poland     9,354   0.68   Uncontrolled 5%
landfill
Portugal     5,009   1.29   40%

Hungary     4,632   1.26  

Fig.  MSW  disposal  methods  in  China  in  2006    
Mexico     36,088   0.93  
Japan     51,607   1.10  
Korea     18,252   1.04  
C h i n a   212,100   0.98  
(2006)  
Source:  Zhang  et  al.  2010  
4  
 Background  

News:  China  deluged  by  toxic  sludge  

Yang  Dazheng,  Lü  Minghe  and  Xie  Dan  
August  17,  2012  

 
“China’s  sewage-­‐treatment  industry  generates  22  million  tonnes  of  sludge  
every  year.  What  happens  to  it?    
Example:  To  dispose  of  500  tonnes  of  sludge  in  Guangzhou,  all  you  need  is  a  
hired  boat  and  a  lible  money  for  petrol.  Within  a  couple  of  hours,  you  can  
discharge  your  load    into  the  river.”  
“Now  the  crucial  ques?on  is  ….  what  technology  to  use  and  whether  or  not  
local  government  is  prepared  to  act.”  
Source:  hbp://www.chinadialogue.net/ar?cle/show/single/en/5115-­‐China-­‐deluged-­‐by-­‐toxic-­‐sludge  
5  
 Co-­‐processing:  Part  of  the  Solu'on  

Waste  management  hierarchy    

Source:  GTZ/Holcim  2006  
6  
 Co-­‐processing:  Part  of  the  Solu'on  
Co-­‐processing  of  hazardous  and  nonhazardous  waste  in  cement  kilns  in  
the  European  Union  in  2003  and  2004    

Source:  EIPPCB  2010  

7  
 Co-­‐processing:  Part  of  the  Solu'on  

Greenhouse  gas  emissions  from  waste  landfilling,  incinera?on,  and  co-­‐processing    

Subs'tu'on   Energy  content  

Water  content  
Fuel   rate     (NCV)    
(%)  
(%  of  fuel)   (GJ/dry  t)  
Municipal  solid  waste  (RDF  frac?on)     10  -­‐  35   up  to  30   12  -­‐  16  
Dewatered  sewage  sludge   75   20   9  -­‐  25  
Dried  sewage  sludge   20   20   9  -­‐  25  
Source:  CEMBUREAU  2009;  Murray  and  Price  2008  
8  
 Fundamentals  of  Co-­‐processing  MSW  and  
Sewage  Sludge  
Reasons  and  Mo'va'ons:  
•  Saving  fuel  costs  
•  Conserving  nonrenewable  fossil  fuels  
•  Reducing  GHG  emissions  
•  Avoiding  nega?ve  impacts  of  waste  
incinera?on  and  landfilling  
•  Integra?ng  waste  ash  into  clinker  =>  saving  
virgin  raw  materials  
•  Avoiding  new  investment  in  incinerators  or  
landfill  facili?es  

Source:  Stasta  et  al.  2006  

9  
 Fundamentals  of  Co-­‐processing  MSW  and  
Sewage  Sludge  
General  principles  for  the  co-­‐processing  of  waste  in  cement  industry:    

•  Co-­‐processing  must  respect  the  waste  hierarchy    

•  Addi'onal  emissions  and  nega?ve  impacts  on  human  health  must  be  
avoided  

•  The  quality  of  the  cement  product  should  remain  unchanged  

•  Companies  engaged  in  co-­‐processing  must  be  qualified  

•  Implementa?on  of  co-­‐processing  has  to  consider  na'onal  

circumstances  

Source:  GTZ/Holcim  2006  

10  
 Fundamentals  of  Co-­‐processing  MSW  and  
Sewage  Sludge  
Some  characteris'cs  of  cement  produc'on  that  allow  for  the  co-­‐processing  of  
waste  materials  in  rotary  kilns:    
•  Main  firing  system,  flame  temperature  of  2,000°C  
•  Gas  reten'on  'mes  of  about  8  seconds  at  temperatures  over  1,200°C  

•  Material  temperatures  of  about  1,450°C  in  the  sintering  zone    

•  Gas  reten?on  ?me  in  the  precalciner  firing  system  of  more  than  2  seconds  at  
temperatures  greater  than  850°C  

•  Destruc'on  of  organic  pollutants  because  of  high  temperatures  

•  Short  exhaust-­‐gas  reten'on  ?mes  in  the  temperature  range  known  to  lead  to  forma?on  
of  dioxins  and  furans  

•  Complete  u'liza'on  of  burnt  waste  ashes  as  clinker  components    

Source:  EIPPCB  2010   11  

  
 
 
 
Technological  Aspects  of  Co-­‐processing    

12  
 Technological  Aspects  of  Co-­‐processing    
Pre-­‐processing  of  MSW  
•  Various  pre-­‐processing  methods  for  MSW  
•  Common  prac?ce  in  developed  countries:  mechanical  biological  
treatment  (MBT)  
•  Main  purpose  of  MBT:  to  prepare  a  combus?ble  material  (i.e.  RDF)  
•  On  average,  MBT  of  1  tonne  of  MSW  yields  about  250  kg  of  RDF  

Source:  ALF-­‐CEMIND  2012  

13  
 Technological  Aspects  of  Co-­‐processing    
Pre-­‐processing  of  sewage  sludge  
•  Sludge  dewatering  increases  the  dry  solids  content  of  sludge  from  2-­‐5%  
to  20  to  40%  
•  Different  types  of  dewatering  processes:  filter  press  ,  belt  press,  
Centrifuges,  etc.  
•  Filter  presses  are  most  commonly  used  for  sludge  from  wastewater  
treatment  plants  
Pre-processing Form of recycled sludge

Incineration Incinerator ash

Dewatering (Heat drying) Mixed with additives Dried sludge

Dewatered sludge

14  
 Technological  Aspects  of  Co-­‐processing    

Pre-­‐processing  of  sewage  sludge  (Con?nue)  

Sewage  sludge  drying:  

•  Use  of  fossil  fuel  for  drying  

•  Sewage  sludge  drying  using  waste  heat  from  cement  plant  flue  gas  

•  Use  of  biogas  from  anaerobic  sludge  diges?on  for  heat  drying  

•  Drying  by  blending  the  dewatered  sludge  with  quicklime  (CaO  +  H2O  →  
Ca(OH)2  +  15.33  kcal/mol)  

•  Solar  Drying  of  Sewage  Sludge  (for  smaller  quan?ty)  

15  
 Technological  Aspects  of  Co-­‐processing    
Storage,  handling,  and  feeding  systems  

Source:  Reinhard  2008  

16  
 Technological  Aspects  of  Co-­‐processing    
Selec'on  of  feed  point  for  alterna've  
fuels  
 
 
 
 
 
A  mul'-­‐fuel  burner  
 

Source:  Basel  Conven?on  2011   17  

 Technological  Aspects  of  Co-­‐processing    

Calciner  configura'ons  and  retrofits    

•  Different  calciner  configura?ons  facilitate  use  of  
various  alterna?ve  fuels  with  different  proper?es  
and  address  the  issue  of  burnout  ?me.  Examples:  
–  KHD  Humboldt  Wedag’s  combus?on  chamber    

–  FLSmidth’s  HOTDISC    

Source:  Hand  2007;  Jensen  2008  

18  
 Technological  Aspects  of  Co-­‐processing    

Emissions  Control  Techniques    

•  Con?nuous  measurement  is  the  BAT  for:    
–  exhaust  volume  
–  humidity  
–  temperature  at  PM  control  device  inlet  
–  dust/PM  
–  O2,  NOx,  dust,  SO2,  CO  
•  Regular  and  periodic  monitoring  is  the  BAT  for:    
–  metals  and  their  compounds  
–  total  organic  carbon/organic  components    
–  HCl,  HF,  NH3,  PCDD/PCDF  
•  IPPC  -­‐BREF  report  provides  the  BAT  for  emissions  control  technologies  
19  
  

Legal,  Regulatory,  and  Ins'tu'onal  Frameworks-­‐  

Interna'onal  Best  Prac'ces    

20  
 How  to  regulate?    

1.  Set  up  legal  frameworks    

2.  Establish  regula?ons  and  standards    
–  Environmental  performance    
–  Product  quality     Examples:    
 
–  Waste  quality     United  States    
–  Opera?onal  requirements      
Also  In  the  report:    
–  Safety  and  health  requirements     European  Union    
3.  Build  up  ins?tu?onal  capacity     Japan    
Australia    
4.  Permixng  and  performance  approval     South  Africa    
5.  Require  monitoring  systems    
6.  Enforcement    

21  
 United  States    
•  Framework:  Clean  Air  Act    
–  Minimum  na?onal  standards  for  air  quality    
•  CO,  lead  (Pd),  NO2,  ozone,  PM  2.5,  PM  10,  SO2  
–  Federal  standards  on  Hazardous  Air  Pollutants  (HAP)  
–  Set  emission  limits  for  9  pollutants  for  co-­‐processing:    
•  Cd,  CO,  PCDD/PCDFs,  hydrogen  chlorine  (HCl),  Pb,  Hg,  NOx,  PM,  SO2    
 
•  Regula'ons  and  Standards:    
  –  Require  adop?ng  the  maximum  achievable  control  technologies  (MACTs)    
(e.g.,  Portland  Cement  Kiln  MACT  )  

•  Ins'tu'onal:    
 
–  U.S.  EPA  regulates  the  emissions  from  co-­‐processing  in  the  U.S.  cement  industry    
–  State  and  local  air  quality  agencies  are  the  primary  permixng  and  enforcement  
authori?es    
–  U.S.  EPA  has  the  approval  authority  on  emission  standards,  changes  in  tes?ng  
methods,  changes  in  emission  monitoring,  changes  in  recordkeeping  and  repor?ng    
22  
 United  States    
•  Permifng    
–  Comprehensive  permixng  programs  (post-­‐1990  Clean  Air  Act  Amendments)  
–  Issued  by  state  regulatory  agencies  (usually  state  EPA)    
–  Title  V  Opera?ng  Permit:    
•  Emission  limits  for  key  air  pollutants:  Nox,  CO,  SO2,  PM  and  HAPs      
•  Emission  limits  for  substances  :  PCDD/PCDFs,  Hg,  total  hydrocarbons    
•  Subject  to  U.S.  EPA  review    

–  Dura?on:    
•  A  maximum  of  5  years  
•  Must  be  renewed    

–  Demonstra?on/tes?ng  permits    
•  Allow  air  emission  performance  tes?ng    (short-­‐term  permits)  

23  
 United  States    
•  Monitoring    
–  Con?nuous  emission  monitoring  systems  (CEMS)  for  Hg,  PM,  and  HCL    
–  Annual  tes?ng:  SO2,  Nox,  CO,  Pb,  Cd,  PCDDs  and  PCDFs    
–  Regular  inspec?on  on  air  pollu?on  control  devices  (e.g.,  scrubbers,  fabric  filters)    

•  Repor'ng    
–  Regular  repor?ng  on  emissions    
–  Online  repor?ng  of  stack  test  reports  to  U.S.  EPA    
–  Must  submit  performance  test  data  through  the  online  system    

•  Enforcement    
–  Poten?al  inspec?ons  conducted  by  U.S.  EPA  personnel    
–  Penal?es  for  viola?ons    
–  U.S.  EPA  enforcement  ini?a?ve:    
•  Conduct  compliance  inves?ga?on  and  evalua?on    

24  
 Thank  You!  
 
More  informa?on  can  be  found  in  the  full  report  
(English  and  Chinese).    
 
   
Ali  Hasanbeigi    
AHasanbeigi@lbl.gov    
 
 
 
This  work  was  supported  by  the  U.S.  Environmental  
Protec?on  Agency  and  the  Ins?tute  for  Industrial  Produc?vity  
through  the  U.S.  Department  of  Energy  under  Contract  No.  
DE-­‐AC02-­‐05CH11231.  
  25