CESI RICERCA REPORT
Project number: EIE 2003 031 - Grant Agreement EIE/031/S07.38597
Supported by
The sole responsibility for the content of this publication lies with the authors. It does not represent the opinion of the Community. The European Commission is not responsible for any use
that may be made of the information contained therei
Publishable result-oriented report
3WP 1 – Co-ordination and Management
Deliverable D 1.9
Progressive Number 4
Date: December 2007
Elaborato Ciceri Giovanni (ASV)08001001 436525 AUT Verificato Negri Antonio Nicola (ASV)08001001 436621 VER Approvato Negri Antonio Nicola (ASV)08001001 436621 APP
CESI RICERCA S.p.A. Via R. Rubattino 54 20134 Milano - Italia Telefono +39 023992.1 Fax +39 0239925370
Capitale sociale 1 100 000 Euro interamente versato
Registro Imprese di Milano, C.F. e P.IVA 05058230961 N. R.E.A. 1793295
Mod. RAPP
v. 05
Contractor
31005047 EC EUROPEAN COMMISSION – QUOVADIS EIE/04/031/S07.38597Subject
Publishable result-oriented report
Contract
EIE/04/0312/S07.38Notes
ORDER PROT. A4524833. QUOVADIS PROJECT – EIE PROGRAM – GRANT AGREEMENT n. EIE/04/031/S07.38597Partial reproduction of this document is permitted only with the written permission from CESI RICERCA.
N. of pages
134N. of pages annexed
Issue date
December 31, 2006Prepared
ASV – G. CICERIVerified
ASV – A. NEGRIApproved
ASV – A. NEGRI© Copyright 2008 by CESI RICERCA. All rights reserved - Activity code 287L
ABSTRACT ... 6
1 INTRODUCTION... 8
1.1 The quovadis Consortium... 9
1.2 Quovadis Project: objective and expected results... 11
2 OVERVIEW OF THE ACTIVITIES ... 14
2.1 Work Package 2 - An holistic approach towards quality management and classification – at a glance ... 14
2.1.1 Summary of activities and results... 16
2.1.2 Conclusions ... 21
2.2 Work Package 3 – Validation exercise... 21
2.2.1 Identification and sampling of representative SRF for the production of test materials .. 22
2.2.2 Production and characterisation of the test materials for validation studies ... 27
2.2.3 Validation exercises according to ISO-Standard 5725: organization and statistical treatment 29 2.3 Work Package 4 - Sampling ... 41
2.3.1 Introduction ... 41
2.3.2 Objectives ... 41
2.3.3 Deliverables... 41
2.3.4 Validation of sampling procedures... 41
2.3.5 Validation testing – sample preparation ... 50
2.3.6 Ruggedness testing ... 50
2.4 Work Package 5 - Physical parameters ... 53
2.4.1 Introduction ... 54
2.4.2 Experimental methods ... 54
2.4.3 Results ... 56
2.4.4 Summary and recommendations ... 64
2.5 Work Package 6 – Chemical Parameters ... 65
2.5.1 Objectives ... 65
2.5.2 Results ... 65
2.6 Work Package 7 : Biological Content ... 90
2.6.1 Introduction ... 90
2.6.2 Research programme ... 91
2.6.3 Results ... 92
2.6.4 Résumé ... 105
2.6.5 Literature ... 106
2.7 Work Package 8: Data Collection... 107
2.7.1 Activities ... 107
2.7.2 General characteristic of the CEE Region countries ... 111
2.8 Work Pak 9 Dissemination ... 115
2.8.1 “QUOVADIS Waste-to-fuel conversion? A thinkshop” was held at the JRC of Ispra on April 28 and 29, 2005... 116
2.8.2 Workshop on actual and potential production and use of SRF, Warsaw on June 13-17, 2005; 120 2.8.3 Workshop in Larnaca (CYPRUS), June 20 – 23 2006 ... 120
2.8.4 presentation of the QUOVADIS Project at the International Solid Waste Association Conference that was held in Buenos Aires on November 6-10, 2005... 124
© Copyright 2008 by CESI RICERCA. All rights reserved - Activity code 287L
2.8.6 Classification, Characterisation and Quality Management of Solid Recovered Fuels ,
Rome, October 23-25, 2007 ... 127
2.8.7 Other specific paper and publication ... 130
3 Short description ... 133
4 Expected and/or achieved results ... 133
Revision number
Date Protocol List of modifications and/or modified paragraphs
ABSTRACT
Solid Recovered Fuels (SRF) are fuels prepared from non-hazardous waste to be utilised for energy recovery in waste incineration or co-incineration plants regulated under Community environmental legislation. In practice, co-incineration of SRF requires a stable supply of pre-treated and homogenized waste upgraded to a fuel quality that can be traded amongst producers and users of SRF. This implies specifications that are included in commercial transactions for SRF. For combustible wastes not suitable for environmentally sound recycling, such appropriate specifications for their preparation could usefully be included in European Standards.
SRFs are composed of a variety of materials of which some although recyclable may have been made available in such a form that recycling is not environmentally sound. On the one hand, materials collected and/or sorted and prepared into a recyclable form should not be considered as SRFs. On the other hand, recyclable materials should not be excluded from SRFs because such an exclusion could lead to disposal of these materials and wastage of the resources embedded in them. It must be stressed that SRF-technology will lead to a significant reduction of waste disposal on landfill sites. Therefore, it is of considerable importance for a sustainable waste management in the EU.
For the time being, a number of issues are still to be considered in order to push the acceptance of SRFs in Europe; a system of quality control and classification for SRFs is one of the key points in this sense: until such a system is not established and widely accepted, end users will still be reluctant to buy and utilize SRFs whose quality and composition is not well known and constant during time.
It’s therefore necessary that methods and criteria to be used for characterization and classification of SRFs are standardized, validated and adopted by all actors who intend to participate to a single, global market system. The way to this goal is through the definition of European technical standards that cover the whole process: sampling, sample treatment, methods for chemical and physical parameters determination, classification and quality system. European Commission issued mandate M/325 to CEN in order to develop Technical Specifications and European standards for characterization and classification of SRFs. CEN TC 343 “Solid Recovered Fuels” developed a number of Technical Specifications on SRFs, that need to be validated and published as ENs (European Standards).
The QUOVADIS-Project aims to deliver the methodological/performance characteristics of uncertainty of CEN standards on quality management and SRF-specification. The objectives of QUOVADIS project are in close agreement with the European Union's policy in the field of energy, which supports the promotion of a sustainable development in the energy context and a sustainable and more efficient energy systems and new technology to accelerate the penetration of the market, stimulating new investments. This aim is achieved also through the development of validated standards and Quality Management System and results dissemination for the removal of market barriers in EU-25.
To meet these requirements, the QUOVADIS consortium proposes a thorough programme of validation covering (a) examination of the implementation of quality-management to the whole production process, and (b) validation exercises based on Round Robins for single TS agreed in the various working groups of CEN TC 343.
The TS to be validated so as to guarantee the quality of the produced SRF, can be grouped as follows:
• sampling statistical considerations, preparation of a laboratory sample, reduction of a
laboratory sample to a test sample (CEN TC 343 WG 3);
• tests for chemical properties such as major and minor constituents (Cl, F, Br, S, N, C,
H), heavy metals and trace elements, (As, Cd, Hg, Pb, Co, Cr, Cu, Mn, Ni, Sb, V, Zn, Al, K, Na, P, Si, Ca) (CEN TC 343 WG 5);
• pysical properties, such as moisture- and ash-content, volatiles and parameters such as
lower heating value, grain-size/particle-size distribution (CEN TC 343 WG 4);
1
INTRODUCTIONWaste incineration practices are currently being diversified and optimised in terms of the efficiency of the recovery of the energy embedded in the waste. One of these tendencies is the conversion of non-hazardous waste into an adequate form for utilisation in an efficient combustion process. The fact that Directive 2000/76/EC on the incineration of waste (WID) now covers both incineration and co-incineration is inter alia recognition of the above described practices. In recital (7) of this Directive it is stated that ”therefore, a high level of environmental
protection and human health protection requires the setting and maintaining of stringent
operational conditions, technical requirements and emission limit values for plants incinerating or coincinerating waste within the Community.”
“The limit values set should prevent or limit so far as practicable negative effects on the
environment and the resulting risks to human health.” In this context, the issue of trading and the need for the development of relevant standards to be used in commercial transactions and utilisation of waste-derived fuels became apparent and were addressed by various CEN Technical Committees.
In Europe, in the last ten years, energy policy targets and waste management legislation gave an impetus to the usage of waste derived fuels based on non hazardous wastes. These fuels, having an average content of 50 - 60% on biogenics, may contribute considerably to the reduction of CO2 emission and the doubling of the share of renewable energy. Moreover, due to liberalisation and need for cost reduction, industry is interested in less expensive homogenous substitute fuels of a specified quality.
At present, the main end-users are the cement and lime industry. However, the market chances in the potential bigger market of the power generation sector are increasing also due to the standardisation effort undertaken. Furthermore, the waste management sectors of the New Member States and Acceding Countries are characterised by an increasing of residual wastes quantities within the municipal solid wastes. At the moment these countries are still characterised by a large disparity between landfilling, which is the major disposal option for all categories of waste, and incineration.
Solid Recovered Fuels (SRF) are prepared from non-hazardous waste and are composed of a variety of
materials of which some, although recyclable in theory, may have become available in forms that made their recycling an environmentally an unsound option. Their use is regulated under EU legislation, and requires specifications for commercial and regulatory purposes. SRF are seen to offer an important contribution to a sustainable means of waste-management in then European Union (EU). Directive 2001/77/EC includes in its scope the production of electricity from biomass, being defined as the biodegradable fraction of products, wastes and residues from agriculture, forestry and related industries, as well as the biodegradable fraction of industrial and municipal waste.
The CEN-Report on Solid Recovered Fuels (5th Framework Programme), Part 2, compiled by the European Commission's Joint Research Center at Ispra, recommended to DG ENV to give a mandate to CEN for drafting an European standard for SRF based under the Council Directive 2000/76/EC on the incineration of waste and the European Waste List. Consequently, the European Commission’s mandate (M325) given to CEN asks “to develop, as a first step, a set of Technical Specifications concerning the use of SRF for energy recovery in waste incineration or co-incineration plants” and in a second step “to transform this set of Technical Standards into European Standards”. Due to the high importance to the EC, the mandate explicitly asks for a “validation to be carried out on a minimum number of technical specifications to be decided between the Commission and the CEN Technical Board before these Technical Specifications are transformed into European Standards.” This proposal focuses on the requirements of Mandate M325, i.e. the organisation and evaluation of the validation and ruggedness tests for sampling, sample pre-treatment, and measurement Technical Specification (TS) according to the general principles of ISO 5725. This includes also the preparation and distribution of 5 appropriate test materials. In addition to TS, the work will include a validation of the TS for
dissemination of the work results in the New Member States.
The QUOVADIS-Project aims to deliver the methodological/performance characteristics of uncertainty of CEN standards on quality management and SRF-specification.
1.1 The quovadis Consortium
QUOVADIS Project (funded in the frame of the programme EIE - Intelligent Energy for Europe) focuses on the requirements of Mandate M325, i.e. the organisation and evaluation of the validation and ruggedness tests for sampling, sample pre-treatment, and measurement Technical Specification (TS) according to the general principles of ISO 5725. This includes also the preparation and distribution of 5 appropriate test materials. The work will include also a validation of the TS for Quality Management based on a cost-benefit analysis and of the TS for a SRF classification system. Besides, the project considers the endorsement of the new standards and the respective Acquis Communautaire in the new Member States. To this end, special emphasis is given the dissemination of the work results in the New Member States. The project started in 2005 and its duration was 3 years. The Co-ordinator of the project was CESI RICERCA (I) and it’s responsible for the work packages concerning validation of chemical parameters, data collection in the New Member States and Dissemination actions; The other main partners was:
• CNR (IT) • CREED (FR) • CTI (IT)
• Enel Produzione (IT) • GLR (UK) • INFA (DE) • IRC/CNR (IT) • IVD (DE) • JRC (EC) • REMONDIS (DE) • SCORIBEL (BE) • SLU (SWE) • STRATENE (FR) • TAUW - BW (NL) • VTT (FIN)
A Project Structure is described in Figure 1.This structure should allow an embedding of the aforementioned different pillars. Despite the simple primary structure the organisation of the workflow within the WPs is rather complex. A careful selection of contributors with a demonstrated expertise in their field is therefore of utmost importance. A synthetic scheme of the structure is reported as follows:
Work Package 1 Coordination and Management
Duration: 36 WP Leader: Ciceri, G. (CESI - IT)
Partecipants: CESI (IT)
Pillar 1 – Quality Management and Classification
Work Package 2 An holistic approach towards quality management and classification
Partecipants: CTI (IT), GLR (UK), INFA (DE), CREED (FR), RWE-U (DE)
Pillar 2 – Validation of technical specifications based on an intercomparison approach
Work Package 3 Validation exercises – production of testing
materials, validation intercomparisons and statistical evaluation
Duration: 36 WP Leader: Gawlik, B.M.. (JRC-IES - EU)
Partecipants: JRC-IES (EU), JRC-IRMM (EU), STRATENE (FR), SCORIBEL(BE)
Work Package 4 Sampling
Duration: 36 WP Leader: Cuperus, J.C. (TAUW-NL)
Partecipants: TAUW (NL), VTT (FIN), INFA (DE)
Work Package 5 Physical Parameters
Duration: 36 WP Leader: Maier, J. (IVD, Stuttgart University-D) Partecipants: IVD (DE), SLU (SWE), VTT (FIN),
IRC/CNR (IT)
Work Package 6 Chemical Parameters
Duration: 36 WP Leader: Achilli, M. (CESI-IT)
Partecipants: CESI (IT), ENEL GEM (IT), VTT (FIN)
Work Package 7 Biological Parameters
Duration: 36 WP Leader: S. Flamme. (INFA-GER)
Partecipants: INFA (DE)
Pillar 3 – Enlargement perspectives and dissemination of information on the use of SRF
Work Package 8 Data Collection
Duration: 36 WP Leader: Ciceri, G. (CESI-IT)
Partecipants: CESI (IT)
Work Package 9 Dissemination of results
Duration: 36 WP Leader: Ciceri, G. (CESI-IT)
QUOVADIS Steering Committee
(DG TREN, D G ENV, DG JR C, CEN, ECOS, ER FO and other financing contributors)
Pillar 2 (W P 2)
Pillar 2 (W P 2) A holistic approach towards
Q uality M anagem ent of SR F and Classification of SRF
Pillar 3 (W P 3
Pillar 3 (W P 3--7)7) Validation of technical Specifications based on an intercom parison approach
Pillar
Pillar 3 (W P 8, 9) Enlargem ent perspectives and
dissem ination of inform ation on the use of SR F
Project Coordinator (W P 1) (CESI)
TASKS TASKS
• Guidelines and Standards for QM in SRF(W G 1);
• Database on SRF in Europe according to classification system(W G 2); • Evaluation of cost/benefit of QMS(W G 1); • Survey on existing QM-System s
for SRF(W G 1);
• Evaluation of environm ental benefit(W G 1); • Further work on classification(W G 2).
TASKS TASKS
• W P 3: Production of Test Materials; Validation Intercom parisons; Ruggedness testing and validation work for: • W P 4: Sam pling(W G 3);
• W P 5: Physical param eters(W G 4); • W P 6: Chem ical Param eters(W G 5); • W P 7: Biological Param eters(W G 3).
TASKS TASKS
• W P 8:Data collection on waste m anagem ent with em phasis on theACs
and the Mediterranean Basin. • W P 9:
+ Dissem ination of QUOADIS-Inform ation; + Analysis of SRF Potential in Europe; + Organisationof a SRF-W orkshop in the AC; + Periodic m eetings for validation exercises.
QUOVADIS Steering Committee
(DG TREN, D G ENV, DG JR C, CEN, ECOS, ER FO and other financing contributors)
Pillar 2 (W P 2)
Pillar 1 (W P 2) A holistic approach towards
Q uality M anagem ent of SR F and Classification of SRF
Pillar 3 (W P 3
Pillar 2 (W P 3--7)7) Validation of technical Specifications based on an intercom parison approach
Pillar
Pillar 3 (W P 8, 9) Enlargem ent perspectives and
dissem ination of inform ation on the use of SR F
Project Coordinator (W P 1) (CESI)
TASKS TASKS
• Guidelines and Standards for QM in SRF(W G 1);
• Database on SRF in Europe according to class. system (W G 2); • Eval. of cost/benefit of QMS (W G 1); • Survey on existing QM-System s
for SRF(W G 1);
• Eval. of environm ental benefit (W G 1); • Further work on class (W G 2).
TASKS TASKS
• W P 3: Production of Test Materials; Validation Intercom parisons; Ruggedness testing and validation work for: • W P 4: Sam pling(W G 3);
• W P 5: Physical param . W G 4); • W P 6: Chem ical Param . (W G 5); • W P 7: Biological Param . (W G 3).
TASKS TASKS
• W P 8:Data collection on waste m anag. with em phasis on theACs and the Mediterranean Basin. • W P 9:
+ Dissem in.of QUOADIS -Inform ation; + Analysis of SRF Potential in Europe; + Organisationof a SRF-W orkshop in the AC; + Periodic m eetings for validation exercises.
Figure 1:QUOVADIS-Project Structure
The QUOVADIS requires the establishment of an Advisory Steering Committee in order to guarantee an optimum flux of information between the Project Consortium and stakeholders interested in the use of solid waste recovered fuels. The ASC, whose secretariat is with the JRC IES, re-groups the following organisations and institutions: DG TREN (empty chair reserved), DG ENV, a series of industrial associations (e.g. ERFO, PlasticEurope, CEPI, CEMBUREAU, ETRA), which are direct or indirectly supporting the activities of QUOVADIS, as well as CEN TC 343, ECOS and some national stakeholders. These groups interact in the ASC with the Project co-ordinator and consortium within the framework set by the contractual requirements of QUOVADIS.
Mr. B. M. Gawlik has been appointed as Secretary of the Steering Committee. The steering Committee will be composed by:
• the Secretary (B. M. Gawlik)
• the QUOVADIS Project Manager (G. Ciceri) • the QUOVADIS WP's Leaders
• a list of financial contributors and /or stakeholder
The main scope of the ASC is constructive communication between the project partners and the users of the deliverables of the project. As the issue of waste-to-fuel-to energy recovery is a very sensitive topic, the ASC shall guarantee a high transparency on the way work is performed by the project partners. Although the ASC is intended as an advisory body, the consortium members of QUOVADIS agree to consider any advice forwarded by the ASC carefully and to react upon invitation in a written form to any input received. All communication is to be channelled through the co-ordinator of the project. The ASC is designed as an open group. Interested parties can join the group at any time, but with no financial obligation whatsoever.
1.2 Quovadis Project: objective and expected results
The objectives of QUOVADIS project are in close agreement with the European Union's policy in the field of energy, which supports the promotion of a sustainable development in the energy context and a sustainable and more efficient energy systems and new technology to accelerate the penetration of the market, stimulating new investments. This aim is achieved also through the development of validated standards and Quality Management System and results dissemination for the removal of market barriers in EU-25.
To meet these requirements, the QUOVADIS consortium proposes a thorough programme of validation covering (a) examination of the implementation of quality-management to the whole production process, and (b) validation exercises based on Round Robins for single TS agreed in the various working groups of CEN TC 343.
The TS to be validated so as to guarantee the quality of the produced SRF, can be grouped as follows:
• sampling statistical considerations, preparation of a laboratory sample, reduction of a laboratory sample to a test sample (CEN TC 343 WG 3);
• tests for chemical properties such as major and minor constituents (Cl, F, Br, S, N, C, H), heavy metals and trace elements, (As, Cd, Hg, Pb, Co, Cr, Cu, Mn, Ni, Sb, V, Zn, Al, K, Na, P, Si, Ca) (CEN TC 343 WG 5);
• pysical properties, such as moisture- and ash-content, volatiles and parameters such as lower heating value, grain-size/particle-size distribution (CEN TC 343 WG 4);
• biological parameters (biodegradable fraction) (CEN TC 343 WG 3).
The WGs use the results from the validation tests to make necessary modifications to the TS so that they can be up-graded to draft ENs. The results of this programme will be disseminated widely and, in particular, knowledge will be transferred to the New Member States (NMS)* in the enlarged EU.
Expected results will include both direct outcomes and indirect effects of the activities described in the proposal. Main direct results are listed below:
• Full documentation (including round robins and ruggedness) on validated TS for 19 TS for chemical, physical, biological, and sampling to be submitted to CEN; the set of standards is composed of:
sampling, (sampling and sample reduction; laboratory sample reduction to test sample); chemical parameters (minor elements -As, Ba, Be, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Hg, Mo, Mn, Ni, Pb,
Sb, Se, V, Zn-; major elements - Si, Al, K, Na, Ca, Mg, Fe, P, Ti-; elemental analysis - C, H, N-; halogens and sulphur -Cl, Br, F, S-; metals with melting point below 700 °C; digestion method before chemical analysis);
physical parameters (calorific value; bulk density; moisture content; content of volatile matter; ash content; ash melting behavior; particle dimensions and particle size distribution; durability and density of pellets and briquettes; bridging properties) ;
biological parameters (biodegradable fraction); • Validated classification system for SRF;
• Documentation on the application of QM to 3 pilot plants including CBA for validation of the QM-TS;
• A comprehensive database on SRF in Europe considering the classification system necessary for the validation of the TS;
• Proceedings on 2 dissemination WS in the AC and 1 final conference event.
Besides the documentation for validation as requested by mandate M325, which will support the SRF-market, the project makes a significant contribution in improving the waste management in
Promoting the use and technology development of SRF in Europe through an harmonised Quality Management and Classification System and diffusion of validated TS, this project will have both environmental, economical and social benefits.
2
OVERVIEW OF THE ACTIVITIES2.1 Work Package 2 - An holistic approach towards quality management
and classification – at a glance
Work-Package 2 was focused on the validation of:
• the Technical Specification (TS) on Specification and Classification developed by TC 343 WG 2. This TS facilitated good understanding between seller and buyer as well as good communication with manufacturers of relevant equipment.
• the TS on quality-management (QM) developed by TC 343 WG 1, offered a route through which the confidence of customers and regulators on the characteristics of the fuel, and in particular, on conformity to agreed specifications, that can be established and maintained, so that SRF could become a readily accepted fuel of the future. To fulfil these main objectives, four Tasks were conceived within WP2:
Task 2.1 State of the art on quality of SRF and method for Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) The required actions were:
(a) to collect information on the quality of SRF at production plants throughout the EU, including those in the Mediterranean states, and to review existing QM systems applied to the production and trade of SRF at these plants; and
(b) to agree the methodology to be applied to perform a cost/benefit analysis (CBA) by which the direct and environmental costs associated with the implementation of QM at the selected sites will be assessed in Task 2.4.
Task 2.2 European Database on the quality of SRF and validation of the TS on classification. The required action was to develop a European database on the quality of SRF according to the classification system introduced by the TS for specification and classification and to check that this TS is fit for purpose
Task 2.3 QM Guidelines.
The required actions were to produce guidelines and one or more model-manuals for the application of the TS for QM systems that CEN/TC 343/WG1 finalized.
Task 2.4 Implementation and validation of the TS on QM.
The required action was to implement, with the assistance of the above-mentioned methodology for CBA (Task 2.1) and the guidelines for QM (Task 2.3), the TS for QM within selected sites, so as to assess benefits (and disadvantages) resulting from that implementation.
Figure 2: Quovadis WP2 – Partners & Host Sites
The deliverables required in the contract with the European Commission are shown in the following table.
NUMBER CONTENT MONTH
D2.1 Updated list of European production plants of SRF and report on CBA methodology to be used in Task 2.5
4
D2.2 SRF quality-data to be used in Task 2.2. 12 D2.3 Application of QM systems to the production
of SRFs throughout the EU 12
D2.4 European database on SRF production 20
D2.5 Validation of TS on SRF classification and QM specification and classification including recommendations to TC 343 for the eventual revision of the TS before its upgrade to a European Standard (EN)
28
D2.6 Guidelines for the application of TS on QM to
selected sites 7
D2.7 Model manual(s) for the site-specific
implementation of QM 33
D2.8 Results of the implementation of QM at selected sites, so as to check the validity of the draft TS on QM for SRF and to provide recommendations to TC 343 for the validation or eventual revision of the TS before its upgrade to a EN
33 Swedish hs Italian hs 1 German hs Italian hs 2 France Germany United Kingdom
2.1.1 Summary of activities and results
As far as Work Package 2 is concerned, the work done was focused to the finalisation of the final definition at CEN/TC 343 level of the parameters and the classes to be considered for the implementation of the classification system.
The TSs produced and approved by CEN/TC 343 were acquired as reference document for the validation exercise. Up to now the classification system was applied to the data base developed by WP2.
As far as objective 3 is concerned, the work done was focused to continue and practically conclude the dissemination of the documentation on the application of QM to three selected plants, and the implementation of the Quality management System.
As far as objective 4 is concerned, the work done was focused on the preparation of an updated list of European production plants of SRF in the former EU 15.
Table 1: SRF identified producers over Europe, and producers providing data about plant, processes and SRF quality in respect of the classification parameters. Country Identified Producers Producers providing data
Finland 21 2
Belgium 11 1
France No answer None
Germany 40 8 The Netherlands 8 4 Italy 94 24 Austria 19 None Greece 6 None Sweden 12 3 Portugal 3 None Denmark 1 1
Spain No plants No plants
UK 4 1
Ireland No plants No plants
Luxembourg No plants No plants
Identified problems and corrective action taken
Problems arose about the collection of data on the quality of SRF at production plants throughout the EU, including those in the Mediterranean states, but they were completely solved with an extra relevant effort spent by the WP leader and the other WP Partners.
Task 2.1 State of the art on quality of SRFs and method for Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA). Considerable effort was invested by the Task Leader in seeking information on the quality of SRF at production plants throughout the EU, including those in the Mediterranean states. The first Deliverable D 2.1 Part 1 was issued on April 2005 showing the first results of the survey. Because this collection of data was so important for the validation of the TS on classification and specification, requests for support was made to the most important institutions operating in the field on European level, including all national representatives within CEN TC 343.
The methodology applied to perform a CBA, by which the direct and environmental costs associated with the implementation of QM at the selected sites was assessed, was finalised and the Deliverable D 2.1 Part 2 was issued on April 2005.
D 2.2 and 2.3 were issued on March 2006 (a delay in respect of the delivery date of December 2005 was asked for and Quovadis Coordinator provided a positive response on the request). Globally, a rate of responses of 50% on the state of the art of the existing QMS was provided, and a good rate in the answers on the state of the art of the SRF production was provided as well. Furthermore, the Task members cooperated in the Deliverable D 2.7 and D 2.8.
The data, collected from Task 2.1, were checked for plausibility and analysed with a data base. All in all, data from 90 SRFs forms about 78 plants out of 10 countries were received by Task 2.2 members. If analyses results for the classification parameters NCV, Cl or Hg were available, these data were used for the following classification:
1. less than ten assays available: no categorisation possible, 2. ten or more assays available: categorisation via statistic,
3. forty or more assays available: categorisation via statistic and via random generator (RND) additional.
For the above mentioned classification parameters, the results of the categorisation are shown in the following tables:
Table 2: Results of NCV classification via statistic
Table 3: Results of Chlorine classification via statistic
Evaluation via statistic
Class
Number of SRFs
Percentages
1
< 0,2
9
15
2
< 0,6
27
44
3
< 1,0
23
37
4
< 1,5
2
3
5
< 3,0
1
2
Total
-
62
100
Class limit
[% dm]
(mean)
Evaluation via statistic
Class Number of SRFs Percentages
1 > 25 5 7 2 > 20 14 19 3 > 15 26 35 4 > 10 20 27 5 > 3 8 11 No class - 2 3 Total - 75 100 Class limit [MJ/kg ar] (mean)
Table 4: Results of Mercury classification via statistic
Evaluation via statistic
*)Class
[mg/MJ ar]
(Median)
[mg/MJ ar]
(80
thpercentile)
Number of
SRFs
Percentages
1
< 0,02
< 0,04
19
47
2
< 0,03
< 0,06
11
9
3
< 0,08
< 0,16
15
21
4
< 0,15
< 0,30
8
6
5
< 0,50
< 1,00
6
12
Total
-
-
59
100
Class limits
The detailed description of the classification procedure, the results and the discussion of them were shown in the report D 2.4 “European database on SRF production according to the classification system” (September 2006), which also contains the analysis of selected specification parameters.
Report on the validation of TS on specification and classification including recommendations to TC 343 for the eventual revision of the TS before its upgrade to an European Standard (EN).
Also the Deliverable D 2.5 was delivered to the Quovadis Coordinator. Task 2.3 QM Guidelines.
The first contract-deliverable (D2.6), a report on “Guidelines for the site-specific implementation of the TS on QM to selected sites” required by Month 7 was delivered. To improve the usefulness of D2.6, the following extra parts were added:
(a) text from the TS on QM;
(b) a note on how the outputs of the five WGs of TC343 should fit together; (c) a note on WP2 of QUOVADIS; (d) suggestions for a manual; and
(e) a check-list (drafted by Task 2.1) that was requested by other members of WP2.
(d) Deliverable D2.7 – “Model manual(s) for the site specific implementation of QM”, was delivered in September 2007.
Task 2.4 Implementation and validation of the TS on QM.
At the request of the Task Leader, Task 2.3 members participated directly and fully in the validation of the TS on QM at three of the four host-sites (i.e. one in Norway and two in Italy), assisting in the development and application of the methodology for validation, and in drafting of the report for Deliverable D2.8. This required a combination of visits to sites, and desk-work. D2.8 was delivered to the Quovadis Coordinator.
Activities in Norway.
The Norwegian plant of a French Group offered its SRF-producing plant as one of the host-sites for Task 2.4.
The Task-Leader, formed a team to carry out the necessary studies, which included several senior staff from the Norwegian plant and Task 2.3 members. An inspection of the site was made by Task 2.4 members, Task 2.1 and 2.3 teams in April 2006.
The input materials at the Norwegian plant are mixed commercial and industrial wastes (municipal wastes are delivered directly to a mass-burn incinerator), with a separate stream of waste wood. These raw materials are processed into two grades of SRF – a baled fluff that is delivered to a nearby district heating plant and chipped wood.
draft TS of TC343?
(b) Is it possible to estimate costs and benefits of applying QMS?
(c) Do Items (a) and/or (b) raise difficulties that ought to be considered by WP2?
It became clear that more specific procedures needed to be drafted for control of input materials and for sampling and testing.
A pragmatic approach was adopted for the assessment of the costs of three cases of QMS: (a) The hypothetical case of no QMS.
(b) The current QMS.
(c) An amended QMS to comply with the TS of TC343.
A questionnaire to collect relevant data on costs was prepared and this part of the study was sent.
Procedures were written to cover areas of the TS compliant QMS that were not already in place under the current QMS. Site work to investigate the practicalities of the implementation of these procedures was completed. This work highlighted some issues regarding practical implementation of these procedures. Cost data associated to:
1) implementation of the TS compliant QMS and 2) maintenance of this QMS
were collected and analysed.
A draft report presenting the implementation of the QMS and issues relating to practicalities of this implementation as well as the cost analysis was produced.
The methodology for collection of benefits was confirmed, and a questionnaire was drafted to cover intangible benefits.
Activities in Italy.
One Italian Group offered its SRF-producing plant as one of the host-sites for Task 2.4. Task 2.1 leader, formed a team to carry out the necessary studies, which included several senior staff and staff from the plant.
Four meetings were held by the team in July, October and November, 2005, and one in February 2006 (also Task 2.3 and 2.4 were invited). Other meetings between Task 2.1 members and the company’s management took place in 2006.
The plant already had a QMS based on ISO 9001, so the main aim of the investigation was to monitor the following:
a) Is there a procedure for the input materials? If so, provide an explanation of it; b) Is it possible to provide quality-control of the process?
c) Is it possible to provide quality-control of the final product?
d) Does the material produced satisfy the limits in the TS for classification and specification? e) Are there external controls on the product?
f) General considerations on the implementation of the TS of TC 343 to the plant.
A draft report was discussed during the meeting of WP 2 at Ispra on December the 5th, 2005. A second Italian Group offered its SRF-producing plant as one of the host-sites for Task 2.4. Task 2.1 Leader, formed a team to carry out the necessary studies, which included several senior staff from Task 2.1, and from the Italian Group. Three meetings were held by the team in
July, October and November, 2005, and one took place in February 2006 (also Task 2.3 and 2.4 members attended).
Other meetings between Task 2.1 members and the company’s management took place in 2006.
Task 2.1 provided Task 2.4 the information and data about the 2 Italian host sites.
Task 2.1 in 2006 worked constantly with the 2 plant teams and their management for the analysis of the Quality Management System and the analysis of costs, and the costs were reviewed in the light of the last developments of the QMS itself in constant cooperation with the management of the companies.
A draft technical report on the evaluation of costs of the first plant was prepared by Task 2.1, and was discussed during a Paris meeting of WP2 (September 2006) and during the meeting at the German plant (October 2006).
The same was done for the second Italian plant and the documentation was delivered to the Task 2.4 leader.
Activities in Germany
At the meeting of WP 2 on 5th December the German coordinator reported that preliminary activities started at the plant, and gave a presentation of the processes at this new plant, which was used as the fourth host site for the purposes of Task 2.4.
The WP 2 Partners met in October at the German facility to visit the plant and to discuss about programmes and data.
The input materials were production specific wastes for the production of the SRF-quality BPG® in the SRF-production plant. MSW, bulky wastes and mixed commercial wastes were sorted positively via NIR-technology in the sorting plant. The gathered High Calorific Fractions were used to produce the SRF-quality SBS®.
It can be summarized for the German plant that a QMS was established and maintained in conformity with and certified according to:
1. 9001 2. Efb
3. RAL-GZ 724
In practice the conformity with all of the three systems was checked externally within one run with the help of the so-called check-list. The existing QMS was extended on the complete new plant too. The extension comprised i.e. the following tools:
1. Quality management manual (digital) for the complete plant ABA 2. automatic sampling of the products
3. “High speed analysis” of Cl for the high calorific fractions and the products BPG® and SBS®
4. training of the stuff
5. new work orders for the plant. These mentioned tools helped to increase:
1. operational capacity of the complete plant. 2. availability of the plant
3. HCF and SRF-quality
4. commercialization of the products
Regarding these aspects it seemed possible to give useful indications about costs and benefits of the extension of the QMS. All these information were delivered to the Task 2.4 Leader for the preparation of D 2.8.
website (http://quovadis.cesi.it)
During the final meeting in Rome a report was made by about the results obtained through the Project. The presentation is available at Quovadis website, where all the conclusions of the work done during the project are reported.
2.1.2 Conclusions
Quovadis WP2 – The validation exercise – Some remarks:
1. The Customer is: both waste supplier and SRF final user for some realities, and this problem needs to be solved;
2. Control of input waste: it is difficult to comply with prEN 15358 unless you consider the semi-finished product as the real raw material for SRF production (e.g. High Calorific Fraction);
3. The last term in the list provided by clause 7.4.3.1.1. of prEN 15358 is: “(h) chemical
analysis (if possible, depending upon the homogeneity of the waste and if necessary, depending on the production criteria”. These words have the potential for raising confusion,
whereas “fundamental requirements” should be surely expressed beyond doubt and any need for discretionary interpretation. The feasibility of chemical analysis per se does not depend on “… the homogeneity of the waste”…; it can be imagined, however, that the authors of that text had in mind the difficult of obtaining a representative sample of input materials. This has been confirmed by the experience gained at Host-sites.
4. Confusion on “lot” definition in the context of conformity with classification and specification is another point that needs to be solved in the process of upgrade to EN; According to prEN 15359: one-tenth of a year’s production; no mention of mass is made there. But, at its Clause 5.3, TS15442 states that the lot-size shall not exceed 1,500 Mg (= tonnes). This disparity needs attention by TC343 because, in some cases, it can have substantial consequences.
5. Sampling and testing for the purpose of quality-control: there is a need for rapid methods.
2.2 Work Package 3 – Validation exercise
WP Leader: Gawlik, B.M.. (JRC-IES - EU) - Participants: JRC-IES (EU), JRC-IRMM (EU), STRATENE (FR), SCORIBELl (BE) - Duration in months: 1-33
The tasks carried out by WP 3 throughout the QUOVADIS project are:
• identification and sampling of representative SRF for the production of test materials; • production and characterisation of test materials for validation studies;
• to perform ruggedness testing and validation exercises according to ISO-Standard 5725; • to perform a statistical evaluation of validation intercomparisons (performance
2.2.1 Identification and sampling of representative SRF for the production of test materials
In order to cover the needs of representative SRF samples for the ruggeddness testing and validation a set of five different SRF materials had to be identified.
A lot of different qualities of SRF are produced within the European Union, some in small quantities, some in very large quantities, some for very specific purposes and some for more general applications, some used internationally and some only at regional level. Therefore the selection of the five representative SRF to be used as basis material for the validation of the TS defined on the CEN TC 343 was limited to materials satisfying the following principles:
• The SRF must comply at least with one of the classes as defined in the TS established by CEN TC WG2 for NCV, Cl and Hg content;
• Due to the small number of SRF materials to be selected compared to those available, only widely produced (industrial production must exist) and/or used SRF (i.e. SRF which meet the requirements of the main final users) should be taken into account;
• The selected SRF needed to be produced and sampled in different EU member states, so that five countries could be involved, thus widening the interest at European level for the project and helping the diffusion of the interest for SRF;
• Data about the composition, behaviour and production processes must be available; • The five SRF should represent a good panel of usual physical aspects of SRF; • Availability and possibilities of delivery to JRC or IRMM has been considered;
It should be noted that, with just five selected types SRF materials, it was impossible to cover the five classes for NCV, five classes for chlorine content and five classes for the mercury content. This implies that some classes for some parameters will not be represented in the SRF selected, even if such SRF materials might exist in practice. In fact, the restrictions due to the limited human, technical and financial possibilities of the QUOVADIS project had to be taken into account. The decision on this point was to try, to cover as far as possible different classes, when complying as far as possible with the selection principles defined above.
Based on the above considerations, the resulting set was composed by the SRF materials described here below.
Sample type A – SRF produced from shredded tyres
This kind of SRF is used in most of the European countries, mainly in cement plant. It has a high calorific value compared to other, so that it is a good test material for the high NCV classes. The selected country for the sampling of this SRF was France and the samples were collected at the Norvalo Centre de Valorisation des Pneumatiques at Dompierre-Bequincourt, near Amiens.
After plant inpection, five 60 litres PE barrels have been filled with the tyre pieces (mixture of iron, rubber and cotton textile) from the open air stocks of semi-processed material. In order to preserve representativeness, samples were collected in different parts of the stocks.
Figure 3 – Shredded end-of-life tyres
Figure 4 – Hand-sampling performed by G. Locoro (JRC-IES)
Sample type B – SRF produced from demolition woodù
SRF produced from demolition wood. This kind of SRF is widely used in the Nordic countries, Germany and in other European countries at a smaller scale. It is used mainly in district heating and power plants, ut can also be used in cement and lime plants.
The selected country for the sampling of this SRF was Finland. And the material was collected at the Lassila & Tikanoja’s plant in Kerava (about 30 km north from Helsinki).
This waste management plant processes different types of waste such as waste from electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), plastic waste (so-called “light fraction”) as well as demolition wood. Twelve 60 litres PE barrels have been filled from the process output after plant inspection. Impressions from the sampling can be gained below.
Figure 6 – Sampled demolition wood
Sample type C – SRF produced from sewage sludge
SRF produced with dried waste water sewage sludge, filtercake and coal or lignite residues. This SRF presents usually a low NCV compared to other, and is mainly used in cement plants where the calorific value is used for fuel substitution and the high ash content is also used for raw material saving. Use in power plants is also possible, but depends of the mineral contents. Some 100 kg of suitable sludge SRF were obtained from SCORIBEL, Belgium. After collection this material were delivered to IRMM in Geel for storage and processing.
Figure 8 – SRF produced by SCORIBEL
Sample type D – SRF produced from Municipal waste
This SRF is produced from the combustible fraction of municipal solid waste. Those SRF are produced in Germany, Finland, Sweden, Belgium, Italy, The Netherlands and probably also in other member states. The physical aspect of that SRF is small pieces of some centimetres. The sampling of this kind of material was carried out at the ECODECO plant near Milan, Italy, where 6 PE barrels of SRF (soft pellets) were sampled and shipped to the JRC for further processing. Impressions from the sampling site can be gained from the pictures below.
Figure 9 – ECODECO SRF Processing plant, Milan, Italy
Sample type E – SRF produced from Municipal waste (paper and plastic rich)
SRF produced from industrial and/or municipal non hazardous waste like a combination of plastic, cardboard and paper, transformed into pellets that ease the transport and manipulation of that SRF. Those pellets are mainly produced in Germany and in the Netherlands. The calorific value is medium, the chlorine content can be determined depending on the quality chosen in order to select an other class for chlorine than the one found for the other selected streams. This type of fuel was sampled at Remondis plant in Erfstadt, in the surroundings of Cologne, Germany. In this plant a highly advanced technology is employed to enhance the fuel quality at the end of the process; a detailed presentation of the process was given us before the sample collection. Five 60 litres barrel plus one 40 litres box of sample were collected according to the plant’s QA/QC sampling procedures.
Figure 11 – REMONDIS device for SRF production
Figure 12 – Filling the barrels
Two PE barrels of SRF from the Pirelli IDEA GRANDA plant were sampled in Cuneo, Italy and transported to JRC IES for further processing. From this material 5 L of acidic digest were produced following the draft TS for mineralisatio. The digest was sent to JRC IRMM for ampouling.
Figure 14 – Sub-sample from the IDEA GRANDA plant
Figure 15 – Production of Acidic Digest from SRF by open-vessel digestion under reflux condition
2.2.2 Production and characterisation of the test materials for validation studies
A series of homogeneity testing and process optimisation were carried jointly by the WP partners. Homogeneity of the ruggedness test materials was assessed in terms of ash content (IVD, Stuttgart), calorific value (SLU, Umeå), and content of Al, S, Cl and Cr by XRF (IES-JRC-EC, Ispra). All QR-materials (QR-A, QR-A2, QR-B, QR-C, QR-E) met the agreed ‘between-sample’ homogeneity criterion (30 %) using a 1 mm sieve insert in the mill. This result was a prerequisite for processing the validation test materials along the same protocol. Based on these results, the final validation materials were produced (Fig 16 - 20). Furthermore, 5 L of an acidic digest were produced as AQC samples for the validation exercise on the critical heavy metals. Thus, in total 6 classes of materials in 11 processing batches (QR and QV materials) and 60 filling sequences were produced. In average 5 different sample sizes/batch with in total 3382 individually numbered samples were obtained. Average processing time for all materials from from receipt of raw materials to dispatch of QR-materials and from receipt of homogeneity test results to packing of validation test materials, was less then 8 weeks.
Figure 16 – Equipment used for the processing of
the SRFs Figure 17 – Materials produced so far Figure 18 – Problems encountered during production 2 Shredded tyre
Six raw materials used for Ruggedness and Validation
Demolition wood
Dried sludge Dried SBS-1
®
Paper/plastic
Fluff Acidic Digest
Figure 19 – Overview on the materials used
4
Four of the materials were cooled in LN
Four of the materials were cooled in LN22
Shredded tyre Demolition wood
Dried SBS-1®
Paper/plastic Fluff
Figure 20 – Nitrogen cooling of material prior to grinding operations
The homogeneity of the test materials was investigated in terms of different properties: ash content, Hg content, moisture, calorific value, and overall composition (by XRF).
The statistical treatment of the homogeneity test has been carried out in cooperation with JRC IRMM (Deliverable 3.4).
The expected trend of having more uniform analysis data with decreasing granulometry is confirmed. On the other hand, the effect of the additional processing to obtain a smaller granulometry does not seem to affect significantly the level of the measured analytes, except moisture.
The target level of between-bottle homogeneity (set at 30 %) has been met in the materials and for all properties evaluated. One can proceed to the processing of the validation study test samples. From the results of the homogeneity tests, the 1.0 mm nominal granulometry is sufficiently fine to obtain the required repeatability. An example of homogeneity testing results are shown in figure 21.
Figure 21 Ash content homogeneity test for sample type E
2.2.3 Validation exercises according to ISO-Standard 5725: organization and statistical treatment
After the selection of the participants in the intercomparisons, validation samples have been delivered to the laboratories. A Microsoft® Excel® template has been prepared, in cooperation with CESIricerche, in order to speed up final collection of data for the validation experiment. A specific database management system has been prepared in order to minimize the interferences on the dataset subsequent to manual data manipulation. The data received on the data recording template have been processed through a macro script and then imported automatically into the database.
In the table at the end of this paragraph, the selected participant laboratories are listed with the respective laboratory tests to be carried out.
Once constituted and consolidated the dataset, the data have been preprocessed in order to discard the values below the respective limits of detection (LOD), as their use may bring to an artifact in the statistical treatment.
The statistical data analysis was based on the international standard ISO 5725-2 ‘Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results – part 2: Basic method for determination of repeatability and reproducibility of a standard measurement method’ (ISO, 1994c), as generalized in chapter 5 of the ISO 5725-5 ‘Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results – part 5: Alternative methods for the determination of precision of a standard measurement method’ (ISO, 1994c) . Data analysis was carried out by means of the statistical software package R, by a dedicated script developed on purpose.
This specific approach chosen has the following paybacks:
b. The procedure is iterative. The presence of very deviant outliers can distort the view of the whole distribution. Multiple outliers can mask each other; by eliminating outliers, new outliers and stragglers may pop up. Each iteration outliers are eliminated, the statistical analysis is repeated to study the distributions in order to trace ‘new’ outliers or stragglers. This iterative procedure will continue until no new outliers are found or, if the iterative approach brings the program to instability or to senseless results, then the number of iterations is limited by scrutiny of the data by the Mandel statistics. A scheme of the iterative procedure is shown in the flowchart on next page.
c. The design for heterogeneous materials proposed in clause 5 of ISO 5725-5 yields information about the variability between samples that is not obtainable simply from the uniform level design described in IS0 5725-2. Therefore valuable information may be gathered by this approach, with an associated cost related to the fact that: the proposed design requires more samples to be tested. The assumptions made to chose the statistical design are that, with dishomogeneous materials like SRF, experiments should involve (for each level of the parameters) three factors arranged in a hierarchy: with a factor "laboratories" at the highest level in the hierarchy, a factor "samples within laboratories" as the next level in the hierarchy, and a factor "test results within samples" as the lowest level of the hierarchy.
The general formulas from paragraph 5.9 of the above mentioned ISO standard have been employed, because in the chosen design the number of replicates per sample bottle was 6 for certain key parameters and 3 for the others, therefore the fixed design formulas of paragraph 5.4 (two bottles, two replicates per bottle) wasn’t appropriate.
Mandel h and k Clear outlying labs? Yes No Reject
Cochran Between Test Results
Cochran Between Sample
Grubbs Clear outlying labs? Yes No End
Company Analyte Description
Country
Institute for Sustainable Waste Management and Technology - University of Leoben
Austria
Biomass/biodegradable
Major Elements after acid dissolution B - ashing (ASTM D6722 + XRF) Ash content
Minor Elements after acid dissolution Cl, F, S, Br by oxygen combustion + ICP Calorific Value Moisture Content Lehrstuhl für Thermoprozesstechnik Austria Volatile Matter Ash content ash melting behaviour C-H-N Flash Combustion Calorific Value
Density of pellets and briquettes Moisture Content
Bulk Density Ofi und BEA
Austria
Durability A - nitric acid + ICP Moisture Content
Cl, F, S, Br by oxygen combustion + ICP Major Elements after acid dissolution Calorific Value
Minor Elements after acid dissolution Volatile Matter
Bulk Density
Density of pellets and briquettes C-H-N Flash Combustion Ash content
Country
Ramboll Finland Ltd. / Consulting Paavo Ristola Ltd. Finland
Ash content Volatile Matter Moisture Content
Major Elements after acid dissolution Calorific Value
C-H-N Flash Combustion
Cl, F, S, Br by oxygen combustion + ICP B - ashing (ASTM D6722 + XRF) Biomass/biodegradable
VTT Espoo Finland
Cl, F, S, Br by oxygen combustion + ICP B - ashing + DTA
A - nitric acid + ICP ash melting behaviour Volatile Matter
Density of pellets and briquettes Ash content
Major Elements after acid dissolution C-H-N Flash Combustion
Moisture Content Calorific Value
Minor Elements after acid dissolution Biomass/biodegradable
CAE - Laboratoire Central France
Biomass/biodegradable Bulk Density Ash content
Major Elements after acid dissolution Moisture Content
Calorific Value
Particle dimesion & Particle size distribution B - ashing (ASTM D6722 + XRF)
Density of pellets and briquettes Minor Elements after acid dissolution Volatile Matter
Cl, F, S, Br by oxygen combustion + ICP C-H-N Flash Combustion
Company Analyte Description
Country
Dresden University of Technology, Department of Waste Management,
Germany
Cl, F, S, Br by oxygen combustion + ICP Major Elements after acid dissolution Volatile Matter
Minor Elements after acid dissolution Moisture Content Calorific Value B - ashing (ASTM D6722 + XRF) C-H-N Flash Combustion Ash content FH - Münster LABU Germany Calorific Value
Major Elements after acid dissolution Moisture Content
Ash content
C-H-N Flash Combustion
Minor Elements after acid dissolution trace elements - 5
Cl, F, S, Br by oxygen combustion + ICP B - ashing (ASTM D6722 + XRF) Bulk Density
Biomass/biodegradable
IMAT-UVE gmbh Germany
Particle dimesion & Particle size distribution Ash content
Density of pellets and briquettes Moisture Content
Bulk Density Durability Volatile Matter Calorific Value
Country
IVD Germany
Major Elements after acid dissolution B - ashing (ASTM D6722 + XRF) C-H-N Flash Combustion Biomass/biodegradable Calorific Value
Particle dimesion & Particle size distribution Ash content
Volatile Matter
Cl, F, S, Br by oxygen combustion + ICP Moisture Content
Minor Elements after acid dissolution ash melting behaviour
SGS INSTITUT FRESENIUS GmbH Environmental Services Germany
Minor Elements after acid dissolution C-H-N Flash Combustion
Calorific Value Bulk Density
Density of pellets and briquettes
Particle dimesion & Particle size distribution Volatile Matter
Ash content Moisture Content Biomass/biodegradable
Cl, F, S, Br by oxygen combustion + ICP Umwelt Control Labor GmbH (UCL)
Germany
Ash content Moisture Content Volatile Matter Calorific Value
Major Elements after acid dissolution Minor Elements after acid dissolution Cl, F, S, Br by oxygen combustion + ICP Biomass/biodegradable
B - ashing (ASTM D6722 + XRF) C-H-N Flash Combustion
Company Analyte Description
Country
Verein Deutscher Zementwerke e.V. Forschungszentrum Germany
Major Elements after acid dissolution Cl, F, S, Br by oxygen combustion + ICP trace elements - 5
Moisture Content Ash content
B - ashing (ASTM D6722 + XRF) Biomass/biodegradable
Minor Elements after acid dissolution Calorific Value
Volatile Matter C-H-N Flash Combustion Analytica Srl
Italy
Major Elements after acid dissolution Minor Elements after acid dissolution
Country
Consiglio Nazionale Delle Ricerche - Istituto Ricerche sulla Combustione
Italy
Bridging Properties DIAAR - Politecnico di Milano
Italy
Major Elements after acid dissolution Moisture Content
B - ashing (ASTM D6722 + XRF) Minor Elements after acid dissolution Cl, F, S, Br by oxygen combustion + ICP ENEL-Produzione Ricerca
Italy
Major Elements after acid dissolution Ash content
Moisture Content
B - ashing (ASTM D6722 + XRF) Minor Elements after acid dissolution IAAN- Area di Ingegneria Agraria
Italy
Calorific Value
Cl, F, S, Br by oxygen combustion + ICP Bulk Density
Major Elements after acid dissolution Density of pellets and briquettes Ash content B - ashing (ASTM D6722 + XRF) Moisture Content C-H-N Flash Combustion B - ashing + DTA Bridging Properties
Particle dimesion & Particle size distribution Volatile Matter
Minor Elements after acid dissolution Durability
Biomass/biodegradable A - nitric acid + ICP trace elements - 5 ash melting behaviour
Company Analyte Description
Country
Labanalysis Italy
Cl, F, S, Br by oxygen combustion + ICP Major Elements after acid dissolution Minor Elements after acid dissolution trace elements - 5
S.A.F.A.S. Divisione Analitica Italy
Calorific Value C-H-N Flash Combustion B - ashing (ASTM D6722 + XRF) Ash content
Cl, F, S, Br by oxygen combustion + ICP Major Elements after acid dissolution Minor Elements after acid dissolution ICHPW
Poland
Biomass/biodegradable
Major Elements after acid dissolution Volatile Matter
Ash content ash melting behaviour Calorific Value Moisture Content C-H-N Flash Combustion B - ashing (ASTM D6722 + XRF) Institute of Power Engineering
Poland Bulk Density Calorific Value Volatile Matter Moisture Content Bridging Properties Durability Biomass/biodegradable Ash content
Density of pellets and briquettes
TL Energopomiar Centralne Poland
C-H-N Flash Combustion
Cl, F, S, Br by oxygen combustion + ICP Calorific Value
Moisture Content trace elements - 5
Major Elements after acid dissolution B - ashing + DTA
A - nitric acid + ICP
Minor Elements after acid dissolution Ash content
Volatile Matter Swedish national Testing and Res Inst.
Sweden
A - nitric acid + ICP
Cl, F, S, Br by oxygen combustion + ICP Ash content
Minor Elements after acid dissolution Calorific Value
C-H-N Flash Combustion ash melting behaviour trace elements - 5 Moisture Content ECN SF-CA
The Netherlands
trace elements - 5
Cl, F, S, Br by oxygen combustion + ICP Volatile Matter
Major Elements after acid dissolution Biomass/biodegradable
Moisture Content Calorific Value Ash content
Minor Elements after acid dissolution C-H-N Flash Combustion
Company Analyte Description
Country
School of Applied Sciences, The University of Wolverhampton United Kingdom
C-H-N Flash Combustion B - ashing + DTA
Cl, F, S, Br by oxygen combustion + ICP Minor Elements after acid dissolution B - ashing (ASTM D6722 + XRF) A - nitric acid + ICP
trace elements - 5 C.C.I.A.A -Trieste
Italy
Cl, F, S, Br by oxygen combustion + ICP B - ashing (ASTM D6722 + XRF) Major Elements after acid dissolution Minor Elements after acid dissolution Moisture Content Biomass/biodegradable Calorific Value Ash content Volatile Matter Analytical srl Italy
Major Elements after acid dissolution Ash content
Volatile Matter
2.3 Work Package 4 - Sampling
2.3.1 IntroductionIn order to determine the quality of any product, samples have to be taken. Sampling is the process of constituting a representative amount of material, representative of a larger mass. Determination of the quality of a product then strongly depends upon the quality of the sampling process. In the case of SRF sampling is considered to be critical. Compared to materials such as aggregates, the degree of heterogeneity is much larger. CEN standards prCEN\TS 15442 (Methods for sampling) and prCEN\TS 15443 (Methods for laboratory sample preparation) supply for procedures for sampling of SRF. The question is how robust these standards are.
Work Package 4 was focused on the validation of the two standards mentioned above. To that aim a sampling scheme was developed. By taking samples at several production plants and analyzing these samples, the quality of the sampling process has been assessed. This report describes the approach of the validation and the results.
2.3.2 Objectives
The objective of the validation testing for sampling is to determine trueness and precision of prCEN\TS 15442 Solid recovered fuels - Methods for sampling. The “trueness” refers to the closeness of agreement between the arithmetic mean of a large number of test results and the true accepted value. The “precision” refers to the closeness of agreement between test results. Unfortunately for SRF, the true accepted value is usually considered as the arrhythmic mean. The true composition of a lot of e.g. 100 ton of SRF is not exactly known. The trueness can only be determined if synthetic lots are used with an exactly known composition. These realistic lot sizes with a known composition are unfeasible to produce, therefore this report focuses on the determination of the precision of the sampling method. Besides this, the reproducibility of the preparation of the sampling plan and the performance of the field work have been determined.
Next to trueness and precision, the robustness of sampling is of importance. The robustness, or ruggedness, of an analytical procedure is a measure of its capacity to remain unaffected by small, but deliberate variations. It provides for an indication of the reliability of the testing during normal usage. WP 4 has also investigated the ruggedness of sampling.
2.3.3 Deliverables
The following deliverables have been produced by WP4:
- Reference document on validation and ruggedness testing of solid recovered fuel - Results of ruggedness testing of the sampling procedures
- Report on the validation of the sampling procedures including recommendations to TC 343 for the eventual revision of the TS before its upgrade to a European standard (EN)
2.3.4 Validation of sampling procedures
In order to validate prCEN\TS 15442 it was chosen to let 5 different types of SRF be sampled in fivefold each time by another sampler. All samples were taken as duplicate samples. To limit the number of required increments the number of laboratories was reduced to one. The influence of laboratories is determined in other work packages.
