Residues: Sustainability starts with legislation Case study on pulp and paper sludges

1. Residues: Sustainability starts with legislationCase study on pulp and paper sludges Fahrudin BAJRIC CEPI’s Recycling Department

2. INTRODUCTION 2

3. Introduction • Management of residues from production is a sustainability challenge for the industry and society as a whole. That is to say, residues, as by-products from production, are also part of the eco-cycle scheme. • How to consider the issue? • Decrease the generation of residues; • Objective: to find and promote the most efficient way when dealing with them. In other words, find options, which are safe for public healthand at the same protect the environment, and still be economically feasible; • But it can also be an offensive tool: waste can be a useful resource in some other applications. • CEPI’s project on pulp and paper residues: mapping of national legislation and practices among member countries.

4. Introduction • The legal framework: • Although “waste” – or production “residue” - is sometimes recognised by standards and professionals as a valuable resource, while being environmentally friendly, it is not as such acknowledged by law; • Legislationthus presents inconsistencies and constraints that the industry needs to handle in its every-day business; and at the same, does not result in the most sustainable position. Complexity is amplified by considerable divergences between MS in transposition and implementation of law. • Contents of the presentation: • Background information on pulp and paper sludges; • Recovery options; • Legislative framework.

5. SLUDGE RESIDUES - BACKGROUND 5

6. Background • Sludge: depends on raw materials, on a production process and on products made. • The main types: primary, biological, deinking and mixed sludge. • The ADEME (France) recognizes several qualities: • Organic matter – mostly cellulose fibres; • Mineral matter - mainly coating clay and calcium carbonate. • Furthermore, it presents stable content, while being odourless; it is considered as pathogen-free and, as such,harmless to human and plant or animal life.

7. Background Legend: Expressed in dry matter; (*) Only for products containing material from industrial processes; (1) Source: For pulp and paper sludge: “Investigation of the Criteria for, and Guidance on, the Landspreading of Industrial waste”, Environmental Agency, 1999;(2) Source: For sewage sludge: “Disposal and Recycling Routes for Sewage Sludge”, European Commission, 2001. Average range in the 15 Member states; (3) Directive 86/278/EEC on the protection of the environment, and in particular of the soil, when sewage sludge is used in agriculture; (4) 2001/688/EC, Decision establishing ecological criteria for the award of the Community eco-label to soil improvers and growing media.

8. Background – Quantitative trends Source: CEPI Database

9. Background – Quantitative trends • Changes in quantities, between 1998 and 2003: • Total amount of sludge – increased by about 20% (disturbed by some data inconsistencies); • Deinking sludge – expanded by 45% (recycling generates residues in a more than proportional way); effluent sludge + 4%; • Paper production – climbed 12% (from 85 000 Kt to 95 000 Kt); • Recovered paper utilization – increased by 17% (from 38 000 Kt to almost 45 000 Kt); • Recycling rate - from 48.4% in 1998 to 52.8% in 2003.

10. Background – Quantitative trends, all residues

11. Background – Quantitative trends, all residues Source: CEPI Database

12. Background • Consideringthe generation of residues, the industry is well aware of maximizing fibre yield and reducing raw material losses: • Natural business incentive towards greater efficiency but also the will of being the leading European industry in the field. • In this regard, the industry: • Has undergone important reviewing of paper making practices leading to a reduction of residues generated – for example: closing up the water circuits (prevention); • Is involved in R&D activities - quantitative and qualitative results. It underpins the COST actions (E26, E48) but is also active in ECOTARGET and EFORWOOD projects, co-financed with the Commission. While Eforwood supports the complete forestry wood chain towards the sustainable development of three pillars (environment, society, economy), Ecotargetfocuseson pulp and paper production; • But solutions for total avoidance of residues are yet to be discovered.

13. SLUDGE - RECOVERY OPTIONS 13

14. Sludge residues – Recovery options • In practice, three factors are simultaneously considered by mills: • Undeniably, the economic factor is reality but it is often, wrongly, resumed as the cheapest sludge management route. On the contrary, the economics of a particular recovery option are more complex: • For demanders of input such as sludges, the cost of introduction in the production process has to be competitive, otherwise they will apply a substitution effect. • The environmental criteria, deeply linked to the legislative framework, supports that the most sustainable solution is chosen. In other words, support for the recovery of valuable resources should be available wherever technically confirmed. • Finally, social acceptance and public willingness, particularly in some cases, are strongly influential criteria. In some countries it is highly difficult to obtain permits for energy recovery (“waste” character of residues).

15. Sludge residues – Recovery options • 1. Reuse within the industry - mostly reintroduced in the production process or used as an energy source: • Example: in France, about 10% of total sludge is directly reintroduced, while 25% is recovered in internal energy production. • 2.Stabilization - composting and anaerobic digestion processes: • Presenting several advantages (carbon sequestration, agricultural value, etc.), composting, for example, is challenged by strong inconveniences (small outlet, land requirement, market, etc.). Competition from other materials is also very aggressive.

16. Sludge residues – Recovery options • 3.Land management options: land restoration and landspreading recognize sludge recovery potential, while the last option, landfill disposal, might be completely eliminated in the future: • But land restoration and landspreading reflect strong divergences among Member States. While in some countries they are recognized as soil improvers or soil fertilizers, and permitted to be used under well established conditions, in others they are completely forbidden, even if sludge gives a guarantee of quality, and is a priori compliant with the award of the Eco-label for Soil Improvers and Growing Medias. • Tests of mixing biosludge with wood based ashes, in Finland, are even increasing the quality of fertilizers (Nitrogen level is more acceptable).

17. Sludge residues – Recovery options • 4. Energy recovery:one of the most commonly used outlets consists of incinerating sludge as a fuel to generate energy: • In some sectors, such as cement kilns, paper sludge is also appreciated for its calorific value, above its mineral content. • However, although based on cellulose and as such being biogenic and C-neutral, some countries refused to include sludges in the biomass ordinance. • 5. Building and construction products: mainly the case in cement production, but also in tile, brick and insulation production • Although they provide satisfying results, operators are not very used to these residues, which hamper further expansion (+ competition from the materials ordinarily used). • 6. Other: animal bedding, cat litter, etc. • Presenting good absorbing characteristics, these solutions are seasonal, not practiced everywhere and concern low volumes.

18. Management options in practice - 2003 Source: CEPI Database

19. Management options in practice - Individual cases Source: CEPI Database

20. INACCURATE LEGAL FRAMEWORK 20

21. Legal framework – Inaccurate structure • Currently, there is no legal recognition for “valuable secondary raw materials”, even when they are recognized by standards. • This legislative inconsistency is further strengthened by the lack of legal definition for “by-products”. • The ECJ had partially clarified the border between “waste” and “by-products”(Cases C-121/03 and C-416/02) mainly as follows: • The good/material results from an extraction or manufacturing process, the primary aim of which is not the production of that item (by-product); • The undertaking does not seek to discard the material (…) but intends to exploit or market it in a subsequent process: the good/material has an economic value as a product without any further processing prior to reuse as part of the continuing process of production. • But sludges are covered by the “waste” definition, resulting in a higher administrative burden and legislative complexity, even if they are correctly recovered, without providing anything extra to the environment.

22. Legal framework – Inaccurate structure • Waste framework directive (75/442/EEC) - the main legal provision: • Clarification between recovery and disposal is needed, where, for example, energy recovery in incineration plants should be considered as recovery, as long as the energy generated is usefully employed; • More attention should be paid to environmentally appropriate criteria. For example, deinking sludge, although providing good calorific value, cannot be consumed in “greater part” - as required by the 3rd criterion of the ECJ – as in some cases the mineral content is above 50%; • In some countries operators have to wait up to one year to get an environmental permit, even if residues are to be used for recovery operations. In this case there is no environmental justification, and benefits to the environment and to climate change should be supported.

23. Legal framework – Inaccurate structure • Directive on the landfilling of waste (99/31/EC): • Reflects the lack of harmonization among Member States on the issue, increasing legislative complexity faced by the industry. While some countries prohibit the landfill of waste with an organic content of over 5 or 10%, others are practicing a total ban for all biodegradable waste. • Directive on the incineration of waste (2000/76/EC): • Unlike "waste" from virgin production, deinking sludge does not benefit from exclusion, even ifit is co-incinerated at the place of production and if the heat is recovered. • Directive on the Renewable Energy Sources (2001/77/EC): • Some MS refuse to include paper sludges in the Biowaste definition, although they are biogenic and “C-neutral” energy sources.

24. Legal framework – Inaccurate structure • Directive on the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (96/61/EC): • Already covers the industry – so there are overlaps of legislation, as double permitting with the “waste – operator” permit occurs very often, resulting in a further burden without providing any extra value to the environment. • Future legislation: revision of the Sewage Sludge Directive – an example: • Risk of being assimilated to municipal sewage sludge, although sludges from paper production are highly different – as seen above.

25. Legal framework – Inaccurate structure • Complexity of legislation is reinforced by transpositions of Member States. • In some countries permits are almost impossible to obtain for energy recovery, even if the energy is needed (Italy), while in other countries mills have to wait up to 2 years on average to get them (Sweden); • Internal organization of countries makes the panel of options legally available very difficult to extract, as legislation among different regions of the same state can highly differ; • In fields where no European legislation exists, states are using contrasting policies; • Consequently, in cases where the number of management options is strongly reduced, the price of residue management is continuously increasing. Furthermore, in many countries a legislative burden presents the main bottleneck to major developments of industry, such as recycling.

26. CONCLUSION 26

27. Conclusion • Due to the lack of appropriate legal recognition for valuable residues and an inaccurate legal framework, recovery options are more difficult to drive and so the sustainability objective is more difficult to achieve in practice, even where technical opportunities exist. • If the legal framework becomes more appropriate, less complex and inconsistent, the paper industry will certainly achieve the sustainability objective more easily.

28. www.cepi.org www.paperonline.org www.paperrecovery.org 250 Avenue Louise, Box 80 B-1050 Brussels Tel: +32 2 627 49 11 Fax: +32 2 646 81 37 mail@cepi.org 28