Institut für Abfall- und Abwasserwirtschaft e. V. Beckumer Str. 36 59229 Ahlen QUOVADIS WP 2 - A holistic approach towards quality management

Institut für Abfall- und Abwasserwirtschaft e. V. Beckumer Str. 36 59229 Ahlen www.infa.de

QUOVADIS WP 2 - A holistic approach towards quality

management and classification

Prof. Dr.-Ing. Sabine Flamme

14. December 2006, Ispra

2

Tasks

Development of an European database on SRF production according to the classification system

Validation of CEN/TS on SRF classification and QM specifica-tion and classification including recommendations to TC 343 for the eventual revision of the TS before its upgrade to an European Standard (EN)

3

Reply: 90 replies towards SRFs produced in 78 plants (from 11

nations)Austria (6), Belgium (9), Denmark (1), Finland (4), Germany (21), Italy (27), The Netherlands (8), Norway (3), Sweden (7), United Kingdom (4)(in brackets: Number of replies towards SRF per nation))France: Only one statement towards used tyres was given

very different quality:„best case“: questionnaire filled in completely, no requests necessary„worst case“: only analysis data or technical data available

Examination of European SRF-data according to the classification system (relates to CEN TC 343 WG 2)

4

Check of the returns (examination of plausibility) and update of the questionnaires (including the results of analyses from external data bases f. e. ERFO)

Data examination with view on plausibility

Carry out calculations (if necessary, conversion from units)

Categorisation of the data quality with respect to the classification parameters (single data, n > = 40; single data, N >= 10 and < 40; single data, n < 10; no examination possible)

Examination of the classification and the classification parameters

Examination for the class distribution(class code e. g. "NCV 3, Cl 2, Hg 2")

Previous activities

5

Summary of evaluable data

Number of SRFs per parameter

NCV Chlorine Mercury

No evaluation possible, thereof 15 17% 28 31% 31 34%

Number of assays < 10 10 11% 10 11% 12 13%

no data given 5 6% 18 20% 19 21%

Evaluation possible, thereof 75 83% 62 69% 59 66%

Mean given (statistical evaluation of NCV and Cl possible)

20 22% 3 3%

Number of assays >= 10(statistical evaluation possible), thereof

55 61% 59 66% 59 66%

Number of assays >= 40 (additional evaluation via RND possible)

25 28% 29 32% 32 36%

Total 90*) 100% 90*) 100% 90*) 100%

*) not considered: one general statement towards used tyres

Possibility of evaluation according to feedback of data

6

Class code is established using median and 80th percentile based on

at least the last ten validated measurements or

at least ten validated measurements per annum taken at random

Prediction method for first classification: Using the 50 % rule in case of more than ten data

assays are available or Using a random generator in case of more than 40

data assays are available

50 % rule: classification is determined by comparing the measurements results of 50 % of the class limits (median and/or 80th percentile)

Mercury: Compliance rules for classification

7

In most cases insufficient database for comparison per annum

INFA evaluated the median and the 80th percentile of all given assays per SRF – for the first classification

Statistical evaluation when ten or more assays were given (comparison with the half limit values) – 50 %-Rule

Furthermore evaluation via RND when 40 or more assays were given (comparison with the whole limit values)

Mercury: Proceeding of classification

8

Results classification Mercury (via statistic)

Statistical evaluation according to the whole database per SRF and parameter

Classes

Unit 1 2 3 4 5

Statistical measure (Median)

<= 0,02 <= 0,03 <= 0,08 <= 0,15 <= 0,50

Statistical measure

(80th percentile)<= 0,04 <= 0,06 <= 0,16 <= 0,30 <= 1,00

Examination 19 11 15 8 6

Classi-ficationproperty

Mercury (Hg)

[mg/MJ ar]

9

Comparison results classification Mercury (statistic vs. RND)

Statistical evaluation

according to the

whole database per

SRF and parameter

Detection limits not always given

10

Compliance rules:

Comparison with the limit values of the classes has to be made by the mean of the values of

at least the last ten validated measurements or at least ten validated measurements per annum taken at

random

Proceeding of classification:

In most cases insufficient database for comparison per annum INFA evaluated the mean of all given assays per SRF

Statistical evaluation when ten or more assays were given (comparison with the whole limit values)

Additional evaluation via RND when 40 or more assays were given (comparison with the whole limit values)

NCV and Chlorine: Compliance rules for classification and proceeding

11

Results classification NCV and Chlorine (via statistic)


Classes

Unit 1 2 3 4 5

Statistical measure (Mean)

>= 25 >= 20 >= 15 >= 10 >= 3 -

Examination 5 14 26 20 8 2 *)

Statistical measure (Mean)

<= 0,2 <= 0,6 <= 1,0 <= 1,5 <= 3 -

Examination 9 27 23 2 1 -

*) = SRF made from sewage sludge

No class

[MJ/kg ar]

[% dm]

Classi-ficationproperty

Chlorine (Cl)

NCV

12

Comparison results classification NCV (statistic vs. RND)


according to the

whole database per

SRF and parameter

13

Comparison results classification Chlorine (statistic vs. RND)


according to the

whole database per

SRF and parameter

14

Mercury subject to quality management system


Number of SRFs in class (via statistic)

1 2 3 4 5

Class limits [mg/MJ ar]

Median < 0,02 < 0,03 < 0,08 < 0,15 < 0,50

80th percentile < 0,04 < 0,06 < 0,16 < 0,30 < 1,00

YES - 12 7 5 3 16 43 2,0

NO - 1 2 1 1 12 17 2,6

n.s. - 6 2 9 5 5 3 30 3,0

Total - 19 11 15 8 6 31 90 -

QMSexisting

Classificationnot possible(less data)

TotalWeighted

mean

Statisticalmeasure

n. s. = not specified

15


1 2 3 4 5


Median < 0,02 < 0,03 < 0,08 < 0,15 < 0,50

80th percentile < 0,04 < 0,06 < 0,16 < 0,30 < 1,00

mono-streams - 3 1 1 1 6 2,0

mixed industrial/commercial waste

- 2 1 2 5 3,3

municipal solid waste - 2 7 1 1 10 21 2,9

mixed waste - 9 9 3 3 17 41 2,0

parties of wood - 3 3 -

sewage sludge - 2 4 6 4,7

n. s. - 2 2 2 1 1 8 2,4

Total - 19 11 15 8 6 31 90 -

Weightedmean

Origin of waste

Statisticalmeasure Classification

not possible(less data)

Total

Mercury subject to origin of waste, the SRF were made from



16

Mercury subject to use



co-incineration: only co-incineration, co-incineration / incineration: co-incineration as well as incineration


1 2 3 4 5


Median < 0,02 < 0,03 < 0,08 < 0,15 < 0,50

80th percentile < 0,04 < 0,06 < 0,16 < 0,30 < 1,00

co-incineration - 11 8 8 6 2 18 53 2,4

co-incineration / incineration

- 1 1 1 4 7 2,7

incineration - 1 1 1 3 2,0

only further processing - 2 2 -

only landfill - 1 1 -

n.s. - 6 2 6 2 3 5 24 2,7

Total - 19 11 15 8 6 31 90 -

Weightedmean

Use

Statisticalmeasure Classification

not possible(less data)

Total

17

Necessity for analytical modification:Analytical methods for the parameters have

to be harmonised (necessary for standardised estimation)

Mercury: maximum detection limits should be givend

actual state:for each type of SRF is an adequate class

available

Conclusions (I)

18

Necessity to work prCEN/TS 15359 over (have to work out for deliverable 2.5), e. g.:

Textual modification:for NCV and Chlorine addition of a specified reference to the consideration of the 95% confidence interval; in contrast to prCEN/TR 15508 a note is missing here)

…

Further validation of the TS after its revision and after the analytical modification should be done

Conclusions (II)

Documents

Institut für Abfall- und Abwasserwirtschaft e. V. Beckumer Str. 36 59229 Ahlen QUOVADIS WP 2 - A holistic approach towards quality management