Waste Management & Research http://wmr.sagepub.com/
Development of sustainable waste management toward zero landfill waste for the petrochemical industry in Thailand using a comprehensive 3R methodology: A case study Parnuwat Usapein and Orathai Chavalparit Waste Manag Res 2014 32: 509 originally published online 13 May 2014 DOI: 10.1177/0734242X14533604 The online version of this article can be found at: http://wmr.sagepub.com/content/32/6/509
Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
International Solid Waste Association
Additional services and information for Waste Management & Research can be found at: Email Alerts: http://wmr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://wmr.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://wmr.sagepub.com/content/32/6/509.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Jun 18, 2014 OnlineFirst Version of Record - May 16, 2014 OnlineFirst Version of Record - May 13, 2014 What is This?
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on July 11, 2014
533604
research-article2014
WMR0010.1177/0734242X14533604Waste Management & ResearchUsapein and Chavalparit
Original article
Development of sustainable waste management toward zero landfill waste for the petrochemical industry in Thailand using a comprehensive 3R methodology: A case study
Waste Management & Research 2014, Vol. 32(6) 509–518 © The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0734242X14533604 wmr.sagepub.com
Parnuwat Usapein1,2 and Orathai Chavalparit2,3
Abstract Sustainable waste management was introduced more than ten years ago, but it has not yet been applied to the Thai petrochemical industry. Therefore, under the philosophy of sustainable waste management, this research aims to apply the reduce, reuse, and recycle (3R) concept at the petrochemical factory level to achieve a more sustainable industrial solid waste management system. Three olefin plants in Thailand were surveyed for the case study. The sources and types of waste and existing waste management options were identified. The results indicate that there are four sources of waste generation: (1) production, (2) maintenance, (3) waste treatment, and (4) waste packaging, which correspond to 45.18%, 36.71%, 9.73%, and 8.37% of the waste generated, respectively. From the survey, 59 different types of industrial wastes were generated from the different factory activities. The proposed 3R options could reduce the amount of landfill waste to 79.01% of the amount produced during the survey period; this reduction would occur over a period of 2 years and would result in reduced disposal costs and reduced consumption of natural resources. This study could be used as an example of an improved waste management system in the petrochemical industry. Keywords 3R concept, industrial wastes, landfill waste, olefin plant, petrochemical wastes, waste management
Introduction The ongoing effort to improve the quality of life has resulted in the deposition of considerable waste into the environment. Earth’s natural resources are being depleted, resulting in environmental damage; we have been aware of this problem for a long time. Over the last few decades, trends in waste management and environmental protection have focused on the development of cleaner production methods and industrial ecology to reduce resource depletion as well as the application of mechanisms found in natural ecosystems to industrial systems (Zamorano et al., 2011). A new method for addressing waste management problems was recently developed (Kollikkathara et al., 2009). A variety of waste management concepts have been introduced in various countries, including the circular economy in China, zero waste in Australia, and industrial symbiosis in Europe (Ma et al., 2014; Simboli et al., 2014; Zaman, 2014a). Each approach has the same goal, i.e. to convert waste at one point in the system into resources at another point; this goal emphasises the product lifecycle as a closed-loop system of resources and energy. The reduce, reuse, and recycle (3R) concept emphasises the closedloop concept through reusing and recycling both resources and energy. However, before considering recycling, the 3R concept focuses on the reduction of waste at the source. It is only after this
first step that the reuse of waste products is considered. In many research projects, the 3R concept has been combined with other waste management principles (such as a circular economy) for reusing waste as a new resource, reducing the pollution of disposal waste, and optimising the utilisation of natural resources with the minimum environmental burden (Wu et al., 2014; Zaman, 2014b). Tools that can be applied at the enterprise level are required to implement a sustainable waste management strategy. The tools must be easy for the people responsible for waste management at the factory to understand. The 3R principle, also known as the
1International
Postgraduate Program in Environmental Management, Graduate School, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand 2Center of Excellence on Hazardous Substance Management (HSM), Bangkok, Thailand 3Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand Corresponding author: Orathai Chavalparit, Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Chulalongkorn University, Phayathai Road, Patumwan, Bangkok 10330, Thailand. Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on July 11, 2014
510
Waste Management & Research 32(6)
hierarchy of waste management, is an important concept for sustainable development (Taylor, 2012). It is an effective tool to implement in a microstructure (single object) to manage increasing quantities of waste. This concept is aimed at reducing the waste to ‘zero waste’ and/or ‘zero landfilling’. In recent years, 3R has received attention from many countries, particularly in Asia, including, Japan, China, the Republic of Korea, and Vietnam (Sakai et al., 2011). As a member of the United Nations, Thailand has been asked to engage in sustainable development, as described in Agenda 21. The Ministry of Industry has established the Eco-Industries policy to promote and support the balancing of environmental conservation and economic growth. The result is expected to allow industry and the community to coexist; in addition, this policy could promote and support a low-carbon society. Thus, the 3R principle has been used as a tool to improve the industrial waste management system in Thailand. Petrochemical waste is difficult to manage because of the presence of different types of wastes and pollutants (Abduli et al., 2006; Mokhtarani, 2006). Landfill is a conventional method for the disposal of petrochemical wastes in Thailand. Unfortunately, landfill sites are often not well designed, resulting in an increase in the environmental burden and public health concerns (Chaya and Gheewala, 2007; Menikpura et al., 2012). Therefore, it is important to recognise that landfill wastes should be revived and diverted into the recycling stream. The efficiency of sustainable waste management has been demonstrated through many case studies (Dong et al., 2013; Zamorano et al., 2011). However, previous studies did not focus on the petrochemical industry. This research project aimed to study how the 3R options could improve industrial-waste management in the Thai petrochemical industry with the ultimate goal of producing zero landfill waste. The 3R options were proposed and implemented at petrochemical plants. After the 3R options were applied to these plants, the benefits in terms of reduced cost, natural resource depletion, and greenhouse gas emissions were evaluated.
Materials and methods The 3R approach and methodology Data collection. The first survey was conducted in 2010. The waste storage facilities and waste treatment systems at the plants were surveyed. The data obtained included the waste sources, types of waste, amounts of waste, and existing waste management practices; the data were collected in a spreadsheet. After the survey was completed, a meeting was conducted between the research team and the person responsible for waste management at the plants. Then, the research team analysed the data with respect to the following topics. •• Waste classification: The source of waste generation was used to identify waste types. •• Existing waste management strategies: Data on existing waste management strategies were collected and analysed.
Proposing the 3R options. The data collected in 2010 were used as a baseline and as guidelines to select appropriate measures for minimising environmental impacts. Each proposed option was described and compared. The details of each step are as follows. Step 1: Introduction to the 3R practice methodology. The first step was to define the problem statement and establish the corresponding specifications for the people responsible for solid waste management at the plant under consideration. In this study, the problem statements were as follows: (1) the olefin plant could develop a sustainable industrial solid waste management system, and (2) the 3R strategy could be applied to the olefin plant to achieve zero landfill waste. Step 2: Creation of a waste inventory. In this step, a waste inventory was created. Information on the type of waste, quantity of waste, and existing waste management strategies was gathered. Step 3: Proposing feasible 3R alternatives for waste management. This step used the data that were collected in Step 2. In some cases, it was necessary to sample the waste and to analyse its composition. The 3R procedures were prioritised to identify those best suited for the site. This step included communication with stakeholders (i.e. the Authority of Industrial Waste Management Bureau, waste processors, and villagers) because some measures required permission from the authorities. Therefore, it was necessary to contact the appropriate state official before initiating the alternative waste management strategies. •• Environmental impact analysis: The purpose of this step is to evaluate the potential environmental impact of the 3R options. The benefit of reducing the use of natural resources was analysed for each 3R option. The potential for raw material and energy substitutions was based on the chemical characteristics of the waste products. The emission factors were obtained using data from the most recent ECO-invent database. •• Economic analysis: The economic analysis was based on the revenue streams and the costs that were avoided through the reduction of waste generated and the corresponding reduction in waste management costs. Step 4: Preparation of the measures and plan to implement the options. The appropriate 3R options were selected by the researcher, environmental engineer, and waste manager. An action plan for the implementation of the selected 3R option was created, and the plan was reviewed every 3 months by the members of the 3R project. Step 5: Monitoring the implementation of the 3R options at the olefin plant. After the 3R options were selected, the outcomes were monitored for 24 months and the results were summarised.
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on July 11, 2014
511
Usapein and Chavalparit Table 1. List of industrial wastes identified in the olefin factory. No.
Identified waste item
Waste types
Waste categories
1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 23 24 26 27 29 30 31 33 34 36 38 41 42 43 44 47 48 51 52 54 55
Activated carbon Air filter Alumina ball Bio-sludge Caustic and yellow oil Chemical cleaning waste Coke Contaminated container Copper slag Dimethyl disulphide Dry cell battery Insulation Lube oil Metal contaminated chemical substance Molecular sieve Monoethanolamine (MEA) mixed with water Contaminated garbage Oil filter Oily sludge Oily wastewater Oligomer Polymer and waste oil Refractory brick Sludge Spent catalyst Spent caustic Tar (pH 5) Used oil Waste oil Wastewater Yellow oil Metal scrap Wood debris Paper scrap Plastic scrap Stainless scrap Aluminium scrap Spent battery Drum metal (200 l) Sand contaminated with oil and chemical substances Fluorescent tube
Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Non-hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Non-hazardous Non-hazardous Non-hazardous Non-hazardous Non-hazardous Non-hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous
Production process Packaging and equipment Production process Waste treatment system Production process Maintenance programme Production process Packaging and equipment Maintenance programme Production process Packaging and equipment Packaging and equipment Maintenance programme Packaging and equipment Production process Maintenance programme Packaging and equipment Packaging and equipment Waste treatment system Waste treatment system Production process Production process Packaging and equipment Waste treatment system Production process Production process Production process Maintenance programme Maintenance programme Waste treatment system Production process Packaging and equipment Packaging and equipment Packaging and equipment Packaging and equipment Packaging and equipment Packaging and equipment Packaging and equipment Packaging and equipment Maintenance programme
Hazardous
Packaging and equipment
59
Case study In this study, three olefin plants were selected as case studies for improving waste management systems. All three plants are located in the Map Ta Phut Industrial Estate (MTPIE) of Rayong Province in eastern Thailand. The plants employ a steam cracking process with a total capacity of 2,888,000 tonnes per year. This capacity is approximately 74.68% of the total olefin production in Thailand. Ethane and naphtha are the main components of the feedstock that is used to produce ethylene and propylene. These products from the plants are sold as feedstock to high density polyethylene (HDPE), low density polyethylene (LDPE), linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE), and ethylene oxide/ethylene glycol (EO/EG) factories.
Results and discussion Waste sources and waste generation The list of industrial waste types generated by the plants is presented in Table 1. A total of 59 different types of industrial waste were generated from the different activities of the factory, such as the production process, the maintenance programme, packaging and equipment, and the waste treatment system. Some wastes (e.g. bio-sludge, metal scrap, paper scrap, wood debris, plastic scrap, aluminium scrap, and stainless scrap) were determined to be non-hazardous, and the remaining types were classified as hazardous wastes. Approximately 91% of the total waste generated was classified as hazardous waste.
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on July 11, 2014
512
Waste Management & Research 32(6)
Figure 1. Waste types from each factory activity in the olefin plants under consideration. (a) Production process waste; (b) maintenance waste; (c) packaging and equipment waste.
Production processes and maintenance programme activities are the main sources of waste generation; these activities account for up to 45.18% and 36.71% of the total waste, respectively, followed by the waste treatment system (9.73%) and packaging (8.37%). The data in Figure 1 indicate the types of waste generated by each waste source activity. As shown in Figure 1(a), most of the waste produced during the production processes consists of oily wastewater and caustic and yellow oil. These wastes can be used as fuel for heating because they contain oil and chemical substances. Figure 1(b) presents ten types of maintenance wastes. Wastes in this category are generated when the petrochemical plant must be cleaned. Special chemical solutions are used to remove pollutants (e.g. heavy oils and polymer deposits) from the machines; after the pollutants are removed, the spent special chemical solutions become waste (called chemical cleaning wastes, used oil, or wash oil). These waste types can be burned for energy recovery
or used in fuel blending. In addition, metal scraps are generated during the blast cleaning of steel or concrete surfaces. Figure 1(c) presents the packaging and equipment wastes that are generated when equipment breaks down. Accidental leaks are the main cause of maintenance programme waste generation. Most of these wastes are mainly composed of inorganic substances; thus, they are unavailable for energy recovery. Disposal of these wastes in landfills is a common method owing to its low cost and simplicity. From a waste management perspective, various types of wastes are more difficult to dispose of than a single waste type. Therefore, we suggest that petrochemical wastes be separated at the source before selecting the most suitable waste management option for each waste type. In addition, estimating the amount of waste generated poses another waste management challenge in petrochemical factories. The quantities of maintenance wastes and packaging and equipment wastes are difficult to estimate
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on July 11, 2014
513
Usapein and Chavalparit
Figure 2. Quantified existing waste material flows of industrial wastes in the plants under consideration (waste data from 2011).
annually because they are not generated in proportion to the production process and the quantity of raw materials used. We sent a questionnaire to the waste manager in each factory to estimate the quantity of landfill waste generated in 2011. The results indicated that all of the waste managers underestimated the quantity of landfill waste produced at their factories. To increase the accuracy of waste generation prediction, we suggest that all waste generators, i.e. maintenance and production departments, cooperate in estimating the waste that will be generated in a given year. Therefore, in large organisations, all departments that generate waste, and not only the environmental department, should participate in waste management operations. When source reduction is the first priority of waste management, each waste generator in the organisation should be aware of waste generation in the factory, and the environmental department should be responsible for selecting the most environmentally friendly waste disposal method. From the data collected in 2010, the baseline level of industrial waste recycling was relatively high (see Figure 2). Approximately 88% of the total waste generated was properly managed. Three main waste management options were identified: fuel substitution (44%), fuel blending (36%), and landfill (7%). Although the plants have a high potential for recycling options, the landfill option is still part of their waste management strategy. For these plants, landfill waste consists of both organic and inorganic material. Inorganic wastes include insulation,
copper slag, contaminated containers, contaminated metal scrap, molecular sieves, and air filters. Organic wastes include biosludge, sludge, wood debris, and plastic scraps. To improve the factories’ waste management systems, we focused on the type of waste that was disposed of in landfills. In Thailand, landfills can be divided into two types: sanitary landfills and secure landfills. Sanitary landfills are reserved for nonhazardous waste, and secure landfills are reserved for hazardous waste.
Proposed 3R options Options for improving the industrial waste management system are presented in Figure 3. Bio-sludge and sludge from the activated sludge wastewater treatment system. Our surveys indicated that sludge from activated sludge wastewater treatment systems can be divided into two types: bio-sludge and sludge. Bio-sludge refers to sludge from an activated sludge wastewater treatment system and is classified as non-hazardous waste. Sludge refers to sludge from an activated sludge wastewater treatment system and is classified as hazardous waste. Options for reducing, reusing and recycling bio-sludge and sludge are described here. 1. On-site reduction: Hydrophilic bio-sludge is difficult to dewater. Sludge volumes can be reduced by (a) improving the
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on July 11, 2014
514
Waste Management & Research 32(6) Waste management approaches of Olefin factory
Reduction
Reuse/Recycling Reuse and recycle insulation waste
Increase the efficiency of the dewatering unit to reduce sludge humidity before disposal
Sort the types of insulators to isolate contaminated insulators and non-contaminated insulators from each other
Separate contaminated container waste at the source
Burn molecular sieves as a co-material in a cement kiln
Use proper container sizes to reduce container waste
Compost bio-sludge as co-composting material for fertiliser production
Burn sludge as a co-material in a cement kiln
Burn copper slag as a co-material in a cement kiln
Figure 3. Proposed 3R options for improving waste management at the olefin factories.
bio-sludge conditioning process or (b) drying the bio-sludge under sunlight prior to disposal (Wittmaier et al., 2009). The volume of bio-sludge can be reduced at the source by using various chemical conditioners to increase the effectiveness of the dewatering operations (Djedidi et al., 2009). This process can reduce the moisture content of the bio-sludge, yielding a more compact form before the sludge is disposed of at a landfill site. 2. Off-site recycling/recovery •• Recycle bio-sludge as co-composting material for fertiliser production: Bio-sludge can be used as a raw material for producing fertiliser or soil conditioners. The methodology for composting bio-sludge as a co-material to produce fertiliser was determined using data from the site visit at Micro Biotec Company Ltd in Rayong Province, Thailand. Before implementing this option, it is necessary to determine the characteristics of the bio-sludge according to the requirements of the Department of Agriculture, Thailand (Ministry of Agricutural Cooperatives Thailand (MAC), 2005). The characteristics of the bio-sludge at the olefin plants are provided in Table 2. The properties of the bio-sludge are similar to the standard requirements for organic matter, the germination index, and total nitrogen. Whereas the bio-sludge has a germination index of 62%, the olefin II sludge has a germination index of 5%. Therefore, the bio-sludge can be composted by mixing it with sawdust and microbial inoculums. The fertiliser production yield is 0.2 tonne of fertiliser per tonne of sludge. •• Burn sludge as a co-material in a cement kiln: Sludge, classified as a hazardous waste, cannot be composted to produce fertiliser. Both bio-sludge and sludge can be burned as a comaterial in cement kilns. Sludge can be burned to recover
energy, and the sludge residues can be used as replacement materials in cement clinkers (Monte et al., 2009). From the analysis, the heating value of sludge is 18,513 MJ tonne-1. Given the quantity of sludge that was generated in 2011 (185 tonnes), it is estimated that the maximum amount of energy that can be recovered by burning the sludge is approximately 342,491 MJ year-1. Insulation waste. Moisture, oil, and other chemical substances often contaminate insulation when they are not stored properly. Our survey indicated that insulation wastes were not stored separately by type and that contaminated insulation waste was not stored separately from non-contaminated insulation waste. Under these conditions, the entire volume of insulation wastes had to be disposed of in a secure landfill as hazardous waste. To improve the waste management system with respect to insulation wastes, 3R options were proposed, beginning with waste reduction at the source. Details are provided here. 1. On-site reduction: Adequate planning and management before insulation demolition can reduce waste generation. The separation of insulation wastes by insulation type and the reuse of uncontaminated insulation on site are best practices for waste management. In this study, a sorting unit was installed to separate types of insulation waste and to store reusable insulation carefully to prevent contamination. After the sorting unit was installed, we found that four types of insulation were employed in the factory: rock wool (51.73%), refractory brick (39.31%), foam glass (7.23%), and polyurethane foam (1.73%). 2. Off-site recycling/recovery: Recycling/recovery in a cement kiln: Some types of insulation waste, e.g. polyurethane and refractory brick, can be diverted from landfills and burned as
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on July 11, 2014
515
Usapein and Chavalparit Table 2. Sludge characteristics at the olefin plant. No.
Characteristics
Olefin I (bio-sludge)
Olefin II (sludge)
Requirement
1
Sieve size (12.5 × 12.5 mm)
90.75%
87.67%
2
15.45%
22.8%
3
Moisture content at 75 °C, 20 h (%) Gravel (%)
Not more than 12.5 × 12.5 mm Not more than 35% by weight
Not Detected
Not Detected
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Plastic, glass, other metal Organic matter Organic carbon pH C/N ratio Electrical conductivity (EC) Germination index (GI; %) Total nitrogen (%)
Not Detected 73.48% 42.62% 8.2 8/1 3.31 62.11% 5.3%
Not Detected 64.71% 37.53% 7.7 6/1 1.76 5.44% 6.4%
Total phosphate (%)
1.8%
3.2%
Total potash (%)
0.3%
0.4%
12
Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury
6.5 6.1 190 62 54.6 13.2
3.4 0.84 212.4 103.8 904.3 15
an alternative fuel and co-material in cement kilns. Refractory brick can be incinerated to replace raw materials, and polyurethane can be incinerated as a substitute for conventional energy. Contaminated containers. According to the survey data, waste containers were not classified and separated during the survey period. All types of contaminated containers were classified as hazardous waste and were sent to landfills. The following 3R options are proposed. 1. On-site reduction/reuse. •• Installing a sorting unit to reduce contaminated containers at the source. •• Using larger containers to reduce the amount of packaging waste. •• Changing from using liquid chemicals to using powdered chemicals to reduce the amount of packaging for transportation. •• Modifying the packaging structure so that packaging can be re-used. •• Creating a large waste container for waste collection to reduce the use of small containers. 2. Off-site recycling/recovery: After a separation unit is installed, the options for each container type are as follows. •• Used metal cans can be sent to a smelter factory; however, a compressing machine is necessary to reduce the waste volume before recycling.
Larger than 5 mm and not more than 5% by weight Not detected (ND) Not less than 30% by weight 5.5–8.5 Not more than 20:1 Not more than 6 dS m-1 More than 80% –T otal N not less than 1.0% by weight – Total P2O5 not less than 5% by weight –T otal K2O not less than 0.5% by weight Not more than 50 mg kg-1 Not more than 5 mg kg-1 Not more than 300 mg kg-1 Not more than 500 mg kg-1 Not more than 500 mg kg-1 Not more than 2 mg kg-1
•• Plastic containers can be burned in an incinerator for energy recovery; however, they should be shredded before burning to increase the contact surface. Copper slag and molecular sieves 1. Off-site recycling/recovery. •• Recycling/recovery in cement kiln: Molecular sieves are used to remove water in the feedstock during olefin production. The sieves are made from a synthesised zeolite compound, and they become deactivated after a certain period of time (Mokhtarani, 2006). Molecular sieves and copper slag are both inorganic materials; they mainly consist of Al2O3, Fe2O3, and SiO2. A typical processing clinker uses four basic oxides for production: calcium oxide, silicon oxide, alumina oxide, and iron oxide (European Cement Association, 2013). Therefore, molecular sieves and copper slag waste can be burned as co-materials in a cement kiln to produce cement clinker.
Implementation of the selected 3R options As shown in Figure 4, the amount of landfill waste that was generated was similar for the first two years (2010–2011). However, a large amount of landfill waste was observed during the final year of monitoring because the olefin plants had performed maintenance activities in 2012 that resulted in the generation of additional waste. The 3R options were introduced to the factories in
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on July 11, 2014
516
Waste Management & Research 32(6)
Figure 4. Annual waste disposed of at a landfill by the olefin plants. Table 3. The environmental impacts of the selected 3R options. Type of waste
Sludge
Selected option
Reduction in Reduction in the Emission factor of landfill waste depletion of natural greenhouse gas (tonnes) resources (tonnes) emissions (tonne CO2 eq/ tonne natural resource)
Burn sludge as an alternative energy in a cement kiln Molecular sieves, Burn inorganic wastes copper slag, as raw materials in a refractory brick cement kiln Bio-sludge Co-compost bio-sludge to produce fertiliser
386.51
30 tonnes of bituminous coala
2.94
698.29
333.65 tonnes of clayb
0.0028
122.13
24.43 tonnes of fertiliserc
2.6
Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (tonnes CO2 eq) 88.06 0.92 63.51
aConsidering
average solid content at 10%, and using 18,513 MJ per tonne of sludge for calculation. amount of clay substituted was based on Al2O3 content (132.46 tonnes) in inorganic wastes. The calculation used 0.397 tonne of Al2O3 per tonne of clay (The Clay Minerals Society, 2013). cThe fertiliser production yield is 0.2 tonne of fertiliser per tonne of sludge.
bThe
January 2011, and the project was monitored for 24 months. After the 3R options were proposed, three main options were selected for application: the burning of inorganic wastes as comaterials in cement kilns, the burning of sludge as an alternative fuel in cement kilns, and the composting of bio-sludge to produce fertiliser. In 2012, the implementation of these 3R options decreased the amount of landfill waste by approximately 79.01%.
Reduction of the environmental impact and disposal costs 1. Evaluation of the environmental benefits of the selected 3R options: The changes in the environmental impact are shown in Table 3. Each option reduces impacts to natural resources and reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Before the 3R project was implemented, the landfill waste listed in Table 3 (approximately 1200 tonnes) resulted in a loss of usable land and potential harm to the environment. However, after the 3R options were proposed and implemented, some petrochemical wastes were used either as raw materials or as alternative energy sources for other factories, thus reducing
the amount of depleted natural resources and greenhouse gas emissions. 2. Cost comparison of the waste disposal methods: As shown in Table 4, the cost of waste disposal was estimated during a site visit to the olefin plant (personal communication, 1 June 2011). The waste disposal cost depends on the characteristics of the waste products. In case of landfill waste, hazardous waste tends to have a higher disposal cost than non-hazardous waste. The total cost of waste disposal was reduced by 453,308 baht/year when industrial waste was diverted from landfills and disposed of using a more environmentally friendly method.
Discussion of the proposed 3R options Wastes from petrochemical factories can be used as raw materials in the agriculture and cement industries. Based on the analysis of the industrial waste flow, a model of almost-zero landfill waste for the petrochemical industry is presented in Figure 5. Figure 5 presents a schematic diagram of optimum waste management for the olefin production industry that can be used to achieve
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on July 11, 2014
517
Usapein and Chavalparit Table 4. The cost saving of the selected 3R options. Type of waste
Selected option
Reduction in landfill waste (tonnes)
Landfill (baht/tonnes)
3R options (baht/tonnes)
Cost savings (baht)
386.51
5581
4584
385,350
698.29
1900
1400
61,065
122.13
3700
3690
6893
Sludge Molecular sieves, copper slag, refractory brick Bio-sludge
Burn sludge as an alternative energy in a cement kiln Burn inorganic wastes as raw materials in a cement kiln Co-compost bio-sludge to produce fertiliser
Cost of disposal
Figure 5. Schematic diagram for optimum waste management for the olefin production industry.
environmental balance in an industrially complex society. According to the data collected in 2012, 1639 tonnes of landfill waste were generated, consisting of 463.19 tonnes of molecular sieves, 399.37 tonnes of bio-sludge, 386.51 tonnes of sludge, 234.40 tonnes of insulation waste, 116.53 tonnes of copper slag, and 26.05 tonnes of contaminated containers. To achieve 79% landfill waste reduction, waste reduction at the source was applied to the sludge, whose moisture content was reduced with solar drying. After a sorting unit was installed in the factories, the reuse option was successfully applied to insulation waste and contaminated containers. Approximately 3 tonnes of insulation
waste and 7.22 tonnes of contaminated containers were reused in the factory. Recycling also plays an important role in reducing landfill waste. Molecular sieves, copper slag, and refractory brick were used as raw materials in the clinker process. Based on the calculations, 222.27, 132.46, and 64.38 tonnes of SiO2, Al2O3, and Fe2O3, respectively, were contained in these wastes. These minerals can be used to replace a portion of the clay needed in the clinker process. In addition, the sludge was used as an alternative energy source to generate 715,527 MJ of energy. This energy can be used as a substitute for approximately 30 tonnes of bituminous
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on July 11, 2014
518
Waste Management & Research 32(6)
coal. When using bio-sludge as a co-composting material for fertiliser production, the nutrient contents in the bio-sludge (i.e. 21.17, 7.19, and 1.20 tonnes of N, P, and K, respectively) are resilient to the environment. Unfortunately, only 122.13 tonnes of bio-sludge was recycled as fertiliser because of the limited capacity of fertiliser production in Thailand.
Conclusions Based on the data obtained, most of the wastes generated by the selected plants are classified as hazardous wastes. The Thai petrochemical plants considered here exhibit a high level of industrial waste recycling. However, they also dispose of various waste types, such as bio-sludge, sludge, insulation, copper slag, molecular sieves, and contaminated containers, in landfills. The comprehensive 3R methodology was applied to divert landfill waste to the recycling stream. Various options were introduced to improve the waste management system. Three main options were selected, and the implementation of these options reduced the amount of landfill waste by approximately 79.01%. However, some types of waste, such as rock wool, are still being disposed of at landfills. Although a sorting process improved the insulation waste management system, the insulation wastes that cannot be reused are still disposed of at landfills because Thailand does not possess the technology to recycle those types of waste. The 3R strategy can be used to improve the sustainability of industrial solid waste management systems by the following methods. •• Reducing waste at the source by using a sorting process. •• Increasing the rate of reuse as a result of waste sorting. •• Increasing the rate of recycling, which results in reduced natural resource depletion. Landfill wastes were reduced by employing the 3R options at the plant; furthermore, disposal costs and the use of raw natural resources were reduced. Sustainable procurement and extended producer responsibility should be introduced to factories to increase the effectiveness of the 3R methodology and reduce waste generation at the source.
Acknowledgements We would like to express our thanks for the data and comments to the petrochemical factories contributed to this manuscript.
Declaration of conflicting interests The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Funding This study was supported by a grant from the Center of Excellence for Environmental and Hazardous Waste Management (EHWM), Chulalongkorn University, Thailand and The 90th Anniversary of Chulalongkorn University Fund (Ratchadaphiseksomphot Endowment
Fund) and Center of Excellence on Hazardous Substance Management (HSM), Chulalongkorn University.
References Abduli MA, Abbasi M, Nasrabadi T, et al. (2006) Solid waste management in Tabriz petrochemical complex. Iranian Journal of Environmental Health Science & Engineering 3: 185–192. Chaya W and Gheewala SH (2007) Life cycle assessment of MSW-to-energy schemes in Thailand. Journal of Cleaner Production 15: 1463–1468. The Clay Minerals Society (CMS) (2013) Source clay physical/chemical data. Available at: http://www.clays.org/SOURCE%20CLAYS/SCdata. html (accessed 2 October 2013). Djedidi Z, Bouda M, Souissi MA, et al. (2009) Metals removal from soil, fly ash and sewage sludge leachates by precipitation and dewatering properties of the generated sludge. Journal of Hazardous Materials 172: 1372–1382. Dong L, Zhang H, Fujita T, et al. (2013) Environmental and economic gains of industrial symbiosis for Chinese iron/steel industry: Kawasaki’s experience and practice in Liuzhou and Jinan. Journal of Cleaner Production 59: 226–238. European Cement Association (ECA) (2013) Cement manufacturing process. Available at: http://www.cembureau.be/about-cement/cementmanufacturing-process (accessed 20 June 2013). Kollikkathara N, Feng H and Stern E (2009) A purview of waste management evolution: special emphasis on USA. Waste Management 29: 974–985. Ma S-H, Wen Z-G, Chen J-N, et al. (2014) Mode of circular economy in China’s iron and steel industry: a case study in Wu’an city. Journal of Cleaner Production 64: 505–512. Ministry of Agricutural Cooperatives Thailand (MAC) (2005) Thai Agricultural Standard TAS 9503–2005: Compost. Available at: http:// www.acfs.go.th/standard/download/eng/compost.pdf (accessed 25 May 2013). Menikpura SN, Gheewala SH and Bonnet S (2012) Framework for life cycle sustainability assessment of municipal solid waste management systems with an application to a case study in Thailand. Waste Management & Research 30: 708–719. Mokhtarani B (2006) Report: Future industrial solid waste management in Pars Special Economic Energy Zone (PSEEZ), Iran. Waste Management & Research 24: 283–288. Monte MC, Fuente E, Blanco A, et al. (2009) Waste management from pulp and paper production in the European Union. Waste Management 29: 293–308. Sakai S, Yoshida H, Hirai Y, et al. (2011) International comparative study of 3R and waste management policy developments. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management 13: 86–102. Simboli A, Taddeo R and Morgante A (2014) Analysing the development of Industrial Symbiosis in a motorcycle local industrial network: the role of contextual factors. Journal of Cleaner Production 66: 372–383. Taylor R (2012) Coping with pollution: Dealing with waste. In: Harris F (ed.) Global Environmental Issues. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Singapore. Wu H-Q, Shia Y, Xiaa Q, et al. (2014) Effectiveness of the policy of circular economy in China: A DEA-based analysis for the period of 11th fiveyear-plan. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 83: 163– 175. Wittmaier M, Langer S and Sawilla B (2009) Possibilities and limitations of life cycle assessment (LCA) in the development of waste utilization systems – Applied examples for a region in Northern Germany. Waste Management 29: 1732–1738. Zaman AU (2014a) Identification of key assessment indicators of the zero waste management systems. Ecological Indicators 36: 682– 693. Zaman AU (2014b) Measuring waste management performance using the ‘Zero Waste Index’: the case of Adelaide, Australia. Journal of Cleaner Production 66: 407–419. Zamorano M, Grindlay A, Molero E, et al. (2011) Diagnosis and proposals for waste management in industrial areas in the service sector: case study in the metropolitan area of Granada (Spain). Journal of Cleaner Production 19: 1946–1955.
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on July 11, 2014
Development of sustainable waste management toward zero landfill waste for the petrochemical industry in Thailand using a comprehensive 3R methodology: A case study Parnuwat Usapein and Orathai Chavalparit Waste Manag Res 2014 32: 509 originally published online 13 May 2014 DOI: 10.1177/0734242X14533604 The online version of this article can be found at: http://wmr.sagepub.com/content/32/6/509
Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
International Solid Waste Association
Additional services and information for Waste Management & Research can be found at: Email Alerts: http://wmr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://wmr.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://wmr.sagepub.com/content/32/6/509.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Jun 18, 2014 OnlineFirst Version of Record - May 16, 2014 OnlineFirst Version of Record - May 13, 2014 What is This?
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on July 11, 2014
533604
research-article2014
WMR0010.1177/0734242X14533604Waste Management & ResearchUsapein and Chavalparit
Original article
Development of sustainable waste management toward zero landfill waste for the petrochemical industry in Thailand using a comprehensive 3R methodology: A case study
Waste Management & Research 2014, Vol. 32(6) 509–518 © The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0734242X14533604 wmr.sagepub.com
Parnuwat Usapein1,2 and Orathai Chavalparit2,3
Abstract Sustainable waste management was introduced more than ten years ago, but it has not yet been applied to the Thai petrochemical industry. Therefore, under the philosophy of sustainable waste management, this research aims to apply the reduce, reuse, and recycle (3R) concept at the petrochemical factory level to achieve a more sustainable industrial solid waste management system. Three olefin plants in Thailand were surveyed for the case study. The sources and types of waste and existing waste management options were identified. The results indicate that there are four sources of waste generation: (1) production, (2) maintenance, (3) waste treatment, and (4) waste packaging, which correspond to 45.18%, 36.71%, 9.73%, and 8.37% of the waste generated, respectively. From the survey, 59 different types of industrial wastes were generated from the different factory activities. The proposed 3R options could reduce the amount of landfill waste to 79.01% of the amount produced during the survey period; this reduction would occur over a period of 2 years and would result in reduced disposal costs and reduced consumption of natural resources. This study could be used as an example of an improved waste management system in the petrochemical industry. Keywords 3R concept, industrial wastes, landfill waste, olefin plant, petrochemical wastes, waste management
Introduction The ongoing effort to improve the quality of life has resulted in the deposition of considerable waste into the environment. Earth’s natural resources are being depleted, resulting in environmental damage; we have been aware of this problem for a long time. Over the last few decades, trends in waste management and environmental protection have focused on the development of cleaner production methods and industrial ecology to reduce resource depletion as well as the application of mechanisms found in natural ecosystems to industrial systems (Zamorano et al., 2011). A new method for addressing waste management problems was recently developed (Kollikkathara et al., 2009). A variety of waste management concepts have been introduced in various countries, including the circular economy in China, zero waste in Australia, and industrial symbiosis in Europe (Ma et al., 2014; Simboli et al., 2014; Zaman, 2014a). Each approach has the same goal, i.e. to convert waste at one point in the system into resources at another point; this goal emphasises the product lifecycle as a closed-loop system of resources and energy. The reduce, reuse, and recycle (3R) concept emphasises the closedloop concept through reusing and recycling both resources and energy. However, before considering recycling, the 3R concept focuses on the reduction of waste at the source. It is only after this
first step that the reuse of waste products is considered. In many research projects, the 3R concept has been combined with other waste management principles (such as a circular economy) for reusing waste as a new resource, reducing the pollution of disposal waste, and optimising the utilisation of natural resources with the minimum environmental burden (Wu et al., 2014; Zaman, 2014b). Tools that can be applied at the enterprise level are required to implement a sustainable waste management strategy. The tools must be easy for the people responsible for waste management at the factory to understand. The 3R principle, also known as the
1International
Postgraduate Program in Environmental Management, Graduate School, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand 2Center of Excellence on Hazardous Substance Management (HSM), Bangkok, Thailand 3Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand Corresponding author: Orathai Chavalparit, Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Chulalongkorn University, Phayathai Road, Patumwan, Bangkok 10330, Thailand. Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on July 11, 2014
510
Waste Management & Research 32(6)
hierarchy of waste management, is an important concept for sustainable development (Taylor, 2012). It is an effective tool to implement in a microstructure (single object) to manage increasing quantities of waste. This concept is aimed at reducing the waste to ‘zero waste’ and/or ‘zero landfilling’. In recent years, 3R has received attention from many countries, particularly in Asia, including, Japan, China, the Republic of Korea, and Vietnam (Sakai et al., 2011). As a member of the United Nations, Thailand has been asked to engage in sustainable development, as described in Agenda 21. The Ministry of Industry has established the Eco-Industries policy to promote and support the balancing of environmental conservation and economic growth. The result is expected to allow industry and the community to coexist; in addition, this policy could promote and support a low-carbon society. Thus, the 3R principle has been used as a tool to improve the industrial waste management system in Thailand. Petrochemical waste is difficult to manage because of the presence of different types of wastes and pollutants (Abduli et al., 2006; Mokhtarani, 2006). Landfill is a conventional method for the disposal of petrochemical wastes in Thailand. Unfortunately, landfill sites are often not well designed, resulting in an increase in the environmental burden and public health concerns (Chaya and Gheewala, 2007; Menikpura et al., 2012). Therefore, it is important to recognise that landfill wastes should be revived and diverted into the recycling stream. The efficiency of sustainable waste management has been demonstrated through many case studies (Dong et al., 2013; Zamorano et al., 2011). However, previous studies did not focus on the petrochemical industry. This research project aimed to study how the 3R options could improve industrial-waste management in the Thai petrochemical industry with the ultimate goal of producing zero landfill waste. The 3R options were proposed and implemented at petrochemical plants. After the 3R options were applied to these plants, the benefits in terms of reduced cost, natural resource depletion, and greenhouse gas emissions were evaluated.
Materials and methods The 3R approach and methodology Data collection. The first survey was conducted in 2010. The waste storage facilities and waste treatment systems at the plants were surveyed. The data obtained included the waste sources, types of waste, amounts of waste, and existing waste management practices; the data were collected in a spreadsheet. After the survey was completed, a meeting was conducted between the research team and the person responsible for waste management at the plants. Then, the research team analysed the data with respect to the following topics. •• Waste classification: The source of waste generation was used to identify waste types. •• Existing waste management strategies: Data on existing waste management strategies were collected and analysed.
Proposing the 3R options. The data collected in 2010 were used as a baseline and as guidelines to select appropriate measures for minimising environmental impacts. Each proposed option was described and compared. The details of each step are as follows. Step 1: Introduction to the 3R practice methodology. The first step was to define the problem statement and establish the corresponding specifications for the people responsible for solid waste management at the plant under consideration. In this study, the problem statements were as follows: (1) the olefin plant could develop a sustainable industrial solid waste management system, and (2) the 3R strategy could be applied to the olefin plant to achieve zero landfill waste. Step 2: Creation of a waste inventory. In this step, a waste inventory was created. Information on the type of waste, quantity of waste, and existing waste management strategies was gathered. Step 3: Proposing feasible 3R alternatives for waste management. This step used the data that were collected in Step 2. In some cases, it was necessary to sample the waste and to analyse its composition. The 3R procedures were prioritised to identify those best suited for the site. This step included communication with stakeholders (i.e. the Authority of Industrial Waste Management Bureau, waste processors, and villagers) because some measures required permission from the authorities. Therefore, it was necessary to contact the appropriate state official before initiating the alternative waste management strategies. •• Environmental impact analysis: The purpose of this step is to evaluate the potential environmental impact of the 3R options. The benefit of reducing the use of natural resources was analysed for each 3R option. The potential for raw material and energy substitutions was based on the chemical characteristics of the waste products. The emission factors were obtained using data from the most recent ECO-invent database. •• Economic analysis: The economic analysis was based on the revenue streams and the costs that were avoided through the reduction of waste generated and the corresponding reduction in waste management costs. Step 4: Preparation of the measures and plan to implement the options. The appropriate 3R options were selected by the researcher, environmental engineer, and waste manager. An action plan for the implementation of the selected 3R option was created, and the plan was reviewed every 3 months by the members of the 3R project. Step 5: Monitoring the implementation of the 3R options at the olefin plant. After the 3R options were selected, the outcomes were monitored for 24 months and the results were summarised.
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on July 11, 2014
511
Usapein and Chavalparit Table 1. List of industrial wastes identified in the olefin factory. No.
Identified waste item
Waste types
Waste categories
1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 23 24 26 27 29 30 31 33 34 36 38 41 42 43 44 47 48 51 52 54 55
Activated carbon Air filter Alumina ball Bio-sludge Caustic and yellow oil Chemical cleaning waste Coke Contaminated container Copper slag Dimethyl disulphide Dry cell battery Insulation Lube oil Metal contaminated chemical substance Molecular sieve Monoethanolamine (MEA) mixed with water Contaminated garbage Oil filter Oily sludge Oily wastewater Oligomer Polymer and waste oil Refractory brick Sludge Spent catalyst Spent caustic Tar (pH 5) Used oil Waste oil Wastewater Yellow oil Metal scrap Wood debris Paper scrap Plastic scrap Stainless scrap Aluminium scrap Spent battery Drum metal (200 l) Sand contaminated with oil and chemical substances Fluorescent tube
Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Non-hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Non-hazardous Non-hazardous Non-hazardous Non-hazardous Non-hazardous Non-hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous
Production process Packaging and equipment Production process Waste treatment system Production process Maintenance programme Production process Packaging and equipment Maintenance programme Production process Packaging and equipment Packaging and equipment Maintenance programme Packaging and equipment Production process Maintenance programme Packaging and equipment Packaging and equipment Waste treatment system Waste treatment system Production process Production process Packaging and equipment Waste treatment system Production process Production process Production process Maintenance programme Maintenance programme Waste treatment system Production process Packaging and equipment Packaging and equipment Packaging and equipment Packaging and equipment Packaging and equipment Packaging and equipment Packaging and equipment Packaging and equipment Maintenance programme
Hazardous
Packaging and equipment
59
Case study In this study, three olefin plants were selected as case studies for improving waste management systems. All three plants are located in the Map Ta Phut Industrial Estate (MTPIE) of Rayong Province in eastern Thailand. The plants employ a steam cracking process with a total capacity of 2,888,000 tonnes per year. This capacity is approximately 74.68% of the total olefin production in Thailand. Ethane and naphtha are the main components of the feedstock that is used to produce ethylene and propylene. These products from the plants are sold as feedstock to high density polyethylene (HDPE), low density polyethylene (LDPE), linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE), and ethylene oxide/ethylene glycol (EO/EG) factories.
Results and discussion Waste sources and waste generation The list of industrial waste types generated by the plants is presented in Table 1. A total of 59 different types of industrial waste were generated from the different activities of the factory, such as the production process, the maintenance programme, packaging and equipment, and the waste treatment system. Some wastes (e.g. bio-sludge, metal scrap, paper scrap, wood debris, plastic scrap, aluminium scrap, and stainless scrap) were determined to be non-hazardous, and the remaining types were classified as hazardous wastes. Approximately 91% of the total waste generated was classified as hazardous waste.
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on July 11, 2014
512
Waste Management & Research 32(6)
Figure 1. Waste types from each factory activity in the olefin plants under consideration. (a) Production process waste; (b) maintenance waste; (c) packaging and equipment waste.
Production processes and maintenance programme activities are the main sources of waste generation; these activities account for up to 45.18% and 36.71% of the total waste, respectively, followed by the waste treatment system (9.73%) and packaging (8.37%). The data in Figure 1 indicate the types of waste generated by each waste source activity. As shown in Figure 1(a), most of the waste produced during the production processes consists of oily wastewater and caustic and yellow oil. These wastes can be used as fuel for heating because they contain oil and chemical substances. Figure 1(b) presents ten types of maintenance wastes. Wastes in this category are generated when the petrochemical plant must be cleaned. Special chemical solutions are used to remove pollutants (e.g. heavy oils and polymer deposits) from the machines; after the pollutants are removed, the spent special chemical solutions become waste (called chemical cleaning wastes, used oil, or wash oil). These waste types can be burned for energy recovery
or used in fuel blending. In addition, metal scraps are generated during the blast cleaning of steel or concrete surfaces. Figure 1(c) presents the packaging and equipment wastes that are generated when equipment breaks down. Accidental leaks are the main cause of maintenance programme waste generation. Most of these wastes are mainly composed of inorganic substances; thus, they are unavailable for energy recovery. Disposal of these wastes in landfills is a common method owing to its low cost and simplicity. From a waste management perspective, various types of wastes are more difficult to dispose of than a single waste type. Therefore, we suggest that petrochemical wastes be separated at the source before selecting the most suitable waste management option for each waste type. In addition, estimating the amount of waste generated poses another waste management challenge in petrochemical factories. The quantities of maintenance wastes and packaging and equipment wastes are difficult to estimate
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on July 11, 2014
513
Usapein and Chavalparit
Figure 2. Quantified existing waste material flows of industrial wastes in the plants under consideration (waste data from 2011).
annually because they are not generated in proportion to the production process and the quantity of raw materials used. We sent a questionnaire to the waste manager in each factory to estimate the quantity of landfill waste generated in 2011. The results indicated that all of the waste managers underestimated the quantity of landfill waste produced at their factories. To increase the accuracy of waste generation prediction, we suggest that all waste generators, i.e. maintenance and production departments, cooperate in estimating the waste that will be generated in a given year. Therefore, in large organisations, all departments that generate waste, and not only the environmental department, should participate in waste management operations. When source reduction is the first priority of waste management, each waste generator in the organisation should be aware of waste generation in the factory, and the environmental department should be responsible for selecting the most environmentally friendly waste disposal method. From the data collected in 2010, the baseline level of industrial waste recycling was relatively high (see Figure 2). Approximately 88% of the total waste generated was properly managed. Three main waste management options were identified: fuel substitution (44%), fuel blending (36%), and landfill (7%). Although the plants have a high potential for recycling options, the landfill option is still part of their waste management strategy. For these plants, landfill waste consists of both organic and inorganic material. Inorganic wastes include insulation,
copper slag, contaminated containers, contaminated metal scrap, molecular sieves, and air filters. Organic wastes include biosludge, sludge, wood debris, and plastic scraps. To improve the factories’ waste management systems, we focused on the type of waste that was disposed of in landfills. In Thailand, landfills can be divided into two types: sanitary landfills and secure landfills. Sanitary landfills are reserved for nonhazardous waste, and secure landfills are reserved for hazardous waste.
Proposed 3R options Options for improving the industrial waste management system are presented in Figure 3. Bio-sludge and sludge from the activated sludge wastewater treatment system. Our surveys indicated that sludge from activated sludge wastewater treatment systems can be divided into two types: bio-sludge and sludge. Bio-sludge refers to sludge from an activated sludge wastewater treatment system and is classified as non-hazardous waste. Sludge refers to sludge from an activated sludge wastewater treatment system and is classified as hazardous waste. Options for reducing, reusing and recycling bio-sludge and sludge are described here. 1. On-site reduction: Hydrophilic bio-sludge is difficult to dewater. Sludge volumes can be reduced by (a) improving the
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on July 11, 2014
514
Waste Management & Research 32(6) Waste management approaches of Olefin factory
Reduction
Reuse/Recycling Reuse and recycle insulation waste
Increase the efficiency of the dewatering unit to reduce sludge humidity before disposal
Sort the types of insulators to isolate contaminated insulators and non-contaminated insulators from each other
Separate contaminated container waste at the source
Burn molecular sieves as a co-material in a cement kiln
Use proper container sizes to reduce container waste
Compost bio-sludge as co-composting material for fertiliser production
Burn sludge as a co-material in a cement kiln
Burn copper slag as a co-material in a cement kiln
Figure 3. Proposed 3R options for improving waste management at the olefin factories.
bio-sludge conditioning process or (b) drying the bio-sludge under sunlight prior to disposal (Wittmaier et al., 2009). The volume of bio-sludge can be reduced at the source by using various chemical conditioners to increase the effectiveness of the dewatering operations (Djedidi et al., 2009). This process can reduce the moisture content of the bio-sludge, yielding a more compact form before the sludge is disposed of at a landfill site. 2. Off-site recycling/recovery •• Recycle bio-sludge as co-composting material for fertiliser production: Bio-sludge can be used as a raw material for producing fertiliser or soil conditioners. The methodology for composting bio-sludge as a co-material to produce fertiliser was determined using data from the site visit at Micro Biotec Company Ltd in Rayong Province, Thailand. Before implementing this option, it is necessary to determine the characteristics of the bio-sludge according to the requirements of the Department of Agriculture, Thailand (Ministry of Agricutural Cooperatives Thailand (MAC), 2005). The characteristics of the bio-sludge at the olefin plants are provided in Table 2. The properties of the bio-sludge are similar to the standard requirements for organic matter, the germination index, and total nitrogen. Whereas the bio-sludge has a germination index of 62%, the olefin II sludge has a germination index of 5%. Therefore, the bio-sludge can be composted by mixing it with sawdust and microbial inoculums. The fertiliser production yield is 0.2 tonne of fertiliser per tonne of sludge. •• Burn sludge as a co-material in a cement kiln: Sludge, classified as a hazardous waste, cannot be composted to produce fertiliser. Both bio-sludge and sludge can be burned as a comaterial in cement kilns. Sludge can be burned to recover
energy, and the sludge residues can be used as replacement materials in cement clinkers (Monte et al., 2009). From the analysis, the heating value of sludge is 18,513 MJ tonne-1. Given the quantity of sludge that was generated in 2011 (185 tonnes), it is estimated that the maximum amount of energy that can be recovered by burning the sludge is approximately 342,491 MJ year-1. Insulation waste. Moisture, oil, and other chemical substances often contaminate insulation when they are not stored properly. Our survey indicated that insulation wastes were not stored separately by type and that contaminated insulation waste was not stored separately from non-contaminated insulation waste. Under these conditions, the entire volume of insulation wastes had to be disposed of in a secure landfill as hazardous waste. To improve the waste management system with respect to insulation wastes, 3R options were proposed, beginning with waste reduction at the source. Details are provided here. 1. On-site reduction: Adequate planning and management before insulation demolition can reduce waste generation. The separation of insulation wastes by insulation type and the reuse of uncontaminated insulation on site are best practices for waste management. In this study, a sorting unit was installed to separate types of insulation waste and to store reusable insulation carefully to prevent contamination. After the sorting unit was installed, we found that four types of insulation were employed in the factory: rock wool (51.73%), refractory brick (39.31%), foam glass (7.23%), and polyurethane foam (1.73%). 2. Off-site recycling/recovery: Recycling/recovery in a cement kiln: Some types of insulation waste, e.g. polyurethane and refractory brick, can be diverted from landfills and burned as
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on July 11, 2014
515
Usapein and Chavalparit Table 2. Sludge characteristics at the olefin plant. No.
Characteristics
Olefin I (bio-sludge)
Olefin II (sludge)
Requirement
1
Sieve size (12.5 × 12.5 mm)
90.75%
87.67%
2
15.45%
22.8%
3
Moisture content at 75 °C, 20 h (%) Gravel (%)
Not more than 12.5 × 12.5 mm Not more than 35% by weight
Not Detected
Not Detected
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Plastic, glass, other metal Organic matter Organic carbon pH C/N ratio Electrical conductivity (EC) Germination index (GI; %) Total nitrogen (%)
Not Detected 73.48% 42.62% 8.2 8/1 3.31 62.11% 5.3%
Not Detected 64.71% 37.53% 7.7 6/1 1.76 5.44% 6.4%
Total phosphate (%)
1.8%
3.2%
Total potash (%)
0.3%
0.4%
12
Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury
6.5 6.1 190 62 54.6 13.2
3.4 0.84 212.4 103.8 904.3 15
an alternative fuel and co-material in cement kilns. Refractory brick can be incinerated to replace raw materials, and polyurethane can be incinerated as a substitute for conventional energy. Contaminated containers. According to the survey data, waste containers were not classified and separated during the survey period. All types of contaminated containers were classified as hazardous waste and were sent to landfills. The following 3R options are proposed. 1. On-site reduction/reuse. •• Installing a sorting unit to reduce contaminated containers at the source. •• Using larger containers to reduce the amount of packaging waste. •• Changing from using liquid chemicals to using powdered chemicals to reduce the amount of packaging for transportation. •• Modifying the packaging structure so that packaging can be re-used. •• Creating a large waste container for waste collection to reduce the use of small containers. 2. Off-site recycling/recovery: After a separation unit is installed, the options for each container type are as follows. •• Used metal cans can be sent to a smelter factory; however, a compressing machine is necessary to reduce the waste volume before recycling.
Larger than 5 mm and not more than 5% by weight Not detected (ND) Not less than 30% by weight 5.5–8.5 Not more than 20:1 Not more than 6 dS m-1 More than 80% –T otal N not less than 1.0% by weight – Total P2O5 not less than 5% by weight –T otal K2O not less than 0.5% by weight Not more than 50 mg kg-1 Not more than 5 mg kg-1 Not more than 300 mg kg-1 Not more than 500 mg kg-1 Not more than 500 mg kg-1 Not more than 2 mg kg-1
•• Plastic containers can be burned in an incinerator for energy recovery; however, they should be shredded before burning to increase the contact surface. Copper slag and molecular sieves 1. Off-site recycling/recovery. •• Recycling/recovery in cement kiln: Molecular sieves are used to remove water in the feedstock during olefin production. The sieves are made from a synthesised zeolite compound, and they become deactivated after a certain period of time (Mokhtarani, 2006). Molecular sieves and copper slag are both inorganic materials; they mainly consist of Al2O3, Fe2O3, and SiO2. A typical processing clinker uses four basic oxides for production: calcium oxide, silicon oxide, alumina oxide, and iron oxide (European Cement Association, 2013). Therefore, molecular sieves and copper slag waste can be burned as co-materials in a cement kiln to produce cement clinker.
Implementation of the selected 3R options As shown in Figure 4, the amount of landfill waste that was generated was similar for the first two years (2010–2011). However, a large amount of landfill waste was observed during the final year of monitoring because the olefin plants had performed maintenance activities in 2012 that resulted in the generation of additional waste. The 3R options were introduced to the factories in
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on July 11, 2014
516
Waste Management & Research 32(6)
Figure 4. Annual waste disposed of at a landfill by the olefin plants. Table 3. The environmental impacts of the selected 3R options. Type of waste
Sludge
Selected option
Reduction in Reduction in the Emission factor of landfill waste depletion of natural greenhouse gas (tonnes) resources (tonnes) emissions (tonne CO2 eq/ tonne natural resource)
Burn sludge as an alternative energy in a cement kiln Molecular sieves, Burn inorganic wastes copper slag, as raw materials in a refractory brick cement kiln Bio-sludge Co-compost bio-sludge to produce fertiliser
386.51
30 tonnes of bituminous coala
2.94
698.29
333.65 tonnes of clayb
0.0028
122.13
24.43 tonnes of fertiliserc
2.6
Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (tonnes CO2 eq) 88.06 0.92 63.51
aConsidering
average solid content at 10%, and using 18,513 MJ per tonne of sludge for calculation. amount of clay substituted was based on Al2O3 content (132.46 tonnes) in inorganic wastes. The calculation used 0.397 tonne of Al2O3 per tonne of clay (The Clay Minerals Society, 2013). cThe fertiliser production yield is 0.2 tonne of fertiliser per tonne of sludge.
bThe
January 2011, and the project was monitored for 24 months. After the 3R options were proposed, three main options were selected for application: the burning of inorganic wastes as comaterials in cement kilns, the burning of sludge as an alternative fuel in cement kilns, and the composting of bio-sludge to produce fertiliser. In 2012, the implementation of these 3R options decreased the amount of landfill waste by approximately 79.01%.
Reduction of the environmental impact and disposal costs 1. Evaluation of the environmental benefits of the selected 3R options: The changes in the environmental impact are shown in Table 3. Each option reduces impacts to natural resources and reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Before the 3R project was implemented, the landfill waste listed in Table 3 (approximately 1200 tonnes) resulted in a loss of usable land and potential harm to the environment. However, after the 3R options were proposed and implemented, some petrochemical wastes were used either as raw materials or as alternative energy sources for other factories, thus reducing
the amount of depleted natural resources and greenhouse gas emissions. 2. Cost comparison of the waste disposal methods: As shown in Table 4, the cost of waste disposal was estimated during a site visit to the olefin plant (personal communication, 1 June 2011). The waste disposal cost depends on the characteristics of the waste products. In case of landfill waste, hazardous waste tends to have a higher disposal cost than non-hazardous waste. The total cost of waste disposal was reduced by 453,308 baht/year when industrial waste was diverted from landfills and disposed of using a more environmentally friendly method.
Discussion of the proposed 3R options Wastes from petrochemical factories can be used as raw materials in the agriculture and cement industries. Based on the analysis of the industrial waste flow, a model of almost-zero landfill waste for the petrochemical industry is presented in Figure 5. Figure 5 presents a schematic diagram of optimum waste management for the olefin production industry that can be used to achieve
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on July 11, 2014
517
Usapein and Chavalparit Table 4. The cost saving of the selected 3R options. Type of waste
Selected option
Reduction in landfill waste (tonnes)
Landfill (baht/tonnes)
3R options (baht/tonnes)
Cost savings (baht)
386.51
5581
4584
385,350
698.29
1900
1400
61,065
122.13
3700
3690
6893
Sludge Molecular sieves, copper slag, refractory brick Bio-sludge
Burn sludge as an alternative energy in a cement kiln Burn inorganic wastes as raw materials in a cement kiln Co-compost bio-sludge to produce fertiliser
Cost of disposal
Figure 5. Schematic diagram for optimum waste management for the olefin production industry.
environmental balance in an industrially complex society. According to the data collected in 2012, 1639 tonnes of landfill waste were generated, consisting of 463.19 tonnes of molecular sieves, 399.37 tonnes of bio-sludge, 386.51 tonnes of sludge, 234.40 tonnes of insulation waste, 116.53 tonnes of copper slag, and 26.05 tonnes of contaminated containers. To achieve 79% landfill waste reduction, waste reduction at the source was applied to the sludge, whose moisture content was reduced with solar drying. After a sorting unit was installed in the factories, the reuse option was successfully applied to insulation waste and contaminated containers. Approximately 3 tonnes of insulation
waste and 7.22 tonnes of contaminated containers were reused in the factory. Recycling also plays an important role in reducing landfill waste. Molecular sieves, copper slag, and refractory brick were used as raw materials in the clinker process. Based on the calculations, 222.27, 132.46, and 64.38 tonnes of SiO2, Al2O3, and Fe2O3, respectively, were contained in these wastes. These minerals can be used to replace a portion of the clay needed in the clinker process. In addition, the sludge was used as an alternative energy source to generate 715,527 MJ of energy. This energy can be used as a substitute for approximately 30 tonnes of bituminous
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on July 11, 2014
518
Waste Management & Research 32(6)
coal. When using bio-sludge as a co-composting material for fertiliser production, the nutrient contents in the bio-sludge (i.e. 21.17, 7.19, and 1.20 tonnes of N, P, and K, respectively) are resilient to the environment. Unfortunately, only 122.13 tonnes of bio-sludge was recycled as fertiliser because of the limited capacity of fertiliser production in Thailand.
Conclusions Based on the data obtained, most of the wastes generated by the selected plants are classified as hazardous wastes. The Thai petrochemical plants considered here exhibit a high level of industrial waste recycling. However, they also dispose of various waste types, such as bio-sludge, sludge, insulation, copper slag, molecular sieves, and contaminated containers, in landfills. The comprehensive 3R methodology was applied to divert landfill waste to the recycling stream. Various options were introduced to improve the waste management system. Three main options were selected, and the implementation of these options reduced the amount of landfill waste by approximately 79.01%. However, some types of waste, such as rock wool, are still being disposed of at landfills. Although a sorting process improved the insulation waste management system, the insulation wastes that cannot be reused are still disposed of at landfills because Thailand does not possess the technology to recycle those types of waste. The 3R strategy can be used to improve the sustainability of industrial solid waste management systems by the following methods. •• Reducing waste at the source by using a sorting process. •• Increasing the rate of reuse as a result of waste sorting. •• Increasing the rate of recycling, which results in reduced natural resource depletion. Landfill wastes were reduced by employing the 3R options at the plant; furthermore, disposal costs and the use of raw natural resources were reduced. Sustainable procurement and extended producer responsibility should be introduced to factories to increase the effectiveness of the 3R methodology and reduce waste generation at the source.
Acknowledgements We would like to express our thanks for the data and comments to the petrochemical factories contributed to this manuscript.
Declaration of conflicting interests The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Funding This study was supported by a grant from the Center of Excellence for Environmental and Hazardous Waste Management (EHWM), Chulalongkorn University, Thailand and The 90th Anniversary of Chulalongkorn University Fund (Ratchadaphiseksomphot Endowment
Fund) and Center of Excellence on Hazardous Substance Management (HSM), Chulalongkorn University.
References Abduli MA, Abbasi M, Nasrabadi T, et al. (2006) Solid waste management in Tabriz petrochemical complex. Iranian Journal of Environmental Health Science & Engineering 3: 185–192. Chaya W and Gheewala SH (2007) Life cycle assessment of MSW-to-energy schemes in Thailand. Journal of Cleaner Production 15: 1463–1468. The Clay Minerals Society (CMS) (2013) Source clay physical/chemical data. Available at: http://www.clays.org/SOURCE%20CLAYS/SCdata. html (accessed 2 October 2013). Djedidi Z, Bouda M, Souissi MA, et al. (2009) Metals removal from soil, fly ash and sewage sludge leachates by precipitation and dewatering properties of the generated sludge. Journal of Hazardous Materials 172: 1372–1382. Dong L, Zhang H, Fujita T, et al. (2013) Environmental and economic gains of industrial symbiosis for Chinese iron/steel industry: Kawasaki’s experience and practice in Liuzhou and Jinan. Journal of Cleaner Production 59: 226–238. European Cement Association (ECA) (2013) Cement manufacturing process. Available at: http://www.cembureau.be/about-cement/cementmanufacturing-process (accessed 20 June 2013). Kollikkathara N, Feng H and Stern E (2009) A purview of waste management evolution: special emphasis on USA. Waste Management 29: 974–985. Ma S-H, Wen Z-G, Chen J-N, et al. (2014) Mode of circular economy in China’s iron and steel industry: a case study in Wu’an city. Journal of Cleaner Production 64: 505–512. Ministry of Agricutural Cooperatives Thailand (MAC) (2005) Thai Agricultural Standard TAS 9503–2005: Compost. Available at: http:// www.acfs.go.th/standard/download/eng/compost.pdf (accessed 25 May 2013). Menikpura SN, Gheewala SH and Bonnet S (2012) Framework for life cycle sustainability assessment of municipal solid waste management systems with an application to a case study in Thailand. Waste Management & Research 30: 708–719. Mokhtarani B (2006) Report: Future industrial solid waste management in Pars Special Economic Energy Zone (PSEEZ), Iran. Waste Management & Research 24: 283–288. Monte MC, Fuente E, Blanco A, et al. (2009) Waste management from pulp and paper production in the European Union. Waste Management 29: 293–308. Sakai S, Yoshida H, Hirai Y, et al. (2011) International comparative study of 3R and waste management policy developments. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management 13: 86–102. Simboli A, Taddeo R and Morgante A (2014) Analysing the development of Industrial Symbiosis in a motorcycle local industrial network: the role of contextual factors. Journal of Cleaner Production 66: 372–383. Taylor R (2012) Coping with pollution: Dealing with waste. In: Harris F (ed.) Global Environmental Issues. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Singapore. Wu H-Q, Shia Y, Xiaa Q, et al. (2014) Effectiveness of the policy of circular economy in China: A DEA-based analysis for the period of 11th fiveyear-plan. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 83: 163– 175. Wittmaier M, Langer S and Sawilla B (2009) Possibilities and limitations of life cycle assessment (LCA) in the development of waste utilization systems – Applied examples for a region in Northern Germany. Waste Management 29: 1732–1738. Zaman AU (2014a) Identification of key assessment indicators of the zero waste management systems. Ecological Indicators 36: 682– 693. Zaman AU (2014b) Measuring waste management performance using the ‘Zero Waste Index’: the case of Adelaide, Australia. Journal of Cleaner Production 66: 407–419. Zamorano M, Grindlay A, Molero E, et al. (2011) Diagnosis and proposals for waste management in industrial areas in the service sector: case study in the metropolitan area of Granada (Spain). Journal of Cleaner Production 19: 1946–1955.
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at Queen Mary, University of London on July 11, 2014
