«EUROPEAN COMMISSION Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Reference Document on Best Available Techniques for the Textiles Industry July 2003 ...»
· EU/ OSPAR have set criteria for the selection and prioritisation of chemicals. The conclusions of the EU/OSPAR criteria may be not fully in agreement with the conclusions derived from the proposed classification schemes · a hazard assessment considers only product-specific properties and not the actual risk or total effluent load. It is crucial to differentiate between hazard and risk. Risk is a function of hazard and exposure. If either of these factors is zero then the risk is also zero. Conversely, a less hazardous product can pose a higher risk than a more hazardous product, if the exposure is high (e.g. quantity, frequency of use, degree of exhaustion, etc.). Hazard and exposure are the integral parts of risk assessment (which is taken into account by EU policy). Correct evaluation of the control of risks arising from the use of chemicals can only be achieved by performing a risk assesment [102, ETAD, 2001] · it is important that the steps of the process and the information that supports the allocation of a product to a given class of hazard remain transparent in order to allow a critical evaluation of the results by the users (both industry and authorities).
Applicability From the user/textile finisher point of view, the implementation of the TEGEWA method does not require particular resources to be spent because the chemical producers classify of the products.
Conversely, the implementation of the Danish SCORE-System implies that the authorities and the companies allocate the necessary man-hours to set up the system. Once the company has joined the system, approximately 25 - 50 man-hours a year are needed for maintenance of the system [192, Danish EPA, 2001].
The broad applicability of this kind of tool at the European level depends on the degree of acceptance of the method by the parties involved (i.e. industry and national authorities).
Economics According to the sources, no major economic problems have been encountered in Germany or in Denmark, where the two proposed classification tools are already applied.
Driving force for implementation Demand from authorities [192, Danish EPA, 2001].
Reference plants The TEGEWA scheme has been applied in Germany since 1998, while the implementation of the SCORE-System is part of the environmental permits for the clothing and textile industry in Ringkjobing in Denmark.
Reference literature [192, Danish EPA, 2001], [37, TEGEWA, 2000], [179, UBA, 2001] with reference to:
“Lepper, 1996” Lepper, P.; Schönberger, H.
Konzipierung eines Verfahrens zur Erfassung und Klassifizierung von Textilhilfsmitteln Abschlussbericht FKZ 10901210 zu einem Forschungsvorhaben im Auftrag des Umweltbundesamtes (1996) - nicht veröffentlicht “TEGEWA, 1998” Noll, L.; Reetz, H.
Gewässerökologisch orientierte Klassifizierung von Textilhilfsmitteln Melliand Textilberichte 81 (2000) 633-635 “TVI-Verband, 1997” Verband der deutschen Textilveredlungsindustrie, TVI-Verband, D-Eschborn Official and published self-commitment concerning the classification of textile auxiliaries according to their waste water relevance, dated 27.11.1997 (1997) 4.3.2 Emission factor concept (emissions to air) Description The emission factor concept embraces the emissions of volatile organic carbon and dangerous substances that are potentially found in the exhaust air from heat-setting, thermosol process, impregnation and fixation of finishing agents. The concept was developed in Germany by public authorities (national and federal states level) in co-operation with the German Association of textile finishing industry (TVI-Verband) and TEGEWA “LAI, 1997”.
The fundamental principle of this concept is that in most cases the emissions produced by the single components in the auxiliary formulations are additive. As a result the emission potential of each recipe can be calculated on the basis of emission factors given for the single substances present in the formulation (for certain substances, however, the correlation between emission and process parameters is more complex).
It is necessary to distinguish between:
· a substance-based emission factor and · a textile substrate-based emission factor.
As described earlier in Section 126.96.36.199.6, the substance-based emission factor (fc or fs) is defined as the amount of substances (organic or inorganic) in grams that can be released at defined process conditions (curing time, curing temperature and type of substrate) from one kilogram of auxiliary. There are two types of substance-based emission factors: 1) fc, which gives the total emission produced by the organic substances present in the formulation, expressed as total organic carbon; 2) fs, which gives the emission attributable to specific toxic or carcinogenic organic substances or to inorganic compounds, such as ammonia and hydrogen chloride, etc. present in the formulation.
In Germany, where the technique is widely applied, the substance-based emission factors are provided to the finisher by the auxiliary supplier, in addition to the information reported in the Material Safety Data Sheets. The factors are based on measurements, calculations or conclusions made by analogy (according to TEGEWA guidance for calculation of substancebased emission factors) [287, Germany, 2002].
The textile substrate-based emission factor (WFc or WFs) is defined as the amount of organic and inorganic substances in grams that can be released as defined process parameters (curing time, curing temperature and type of substrate) from one kilogram of textile treated with a given auxiliary formulation. The textile substrate-based emission factor can be calculated on the basis of the emission factors of the individual components of the formulation/recipe (fc or fs), their concentration in the liquor (FK) and the liquor pick-up. One example of calculation of the textile-based emission factor is reported in Table 3.44.
The calculated textile substrate-based emission factors WFc/s can then be compared with the limit values for textile substrate-based emission factors set by environmental authorities (referred to a standard air-to-textile substrate ratio of 20 m3 air/kg textile substrate).
Main achieved environmental benefits
The concept can be regarded as a system to control and prevent air emissions from textile finishing. The auxiliary-based substance emission factor makes it possible to predict the emissions of a given recipe based on the emission factors of the single components. In this way the operator knows the emissions of his process before carrying it out. He can therefore concentrate at the product and process design stage on minimising the emissions at the source, for example by reducing the amount of auxiliaries or selecting auxiliaries with lower emission potentials.
Operational data Typical auxiliary-based emission factors are summarised in Annex IV.
The control of the air emissions of the recipes/formulations for finishing by pre-calculation of the textile substrate-based emission factors should be done regularly (at least once a year) and specially before using a new recipe or changing compounds of an existing recipe.
The following reflects the air emission values related to an air/ textile substrate ratio of 20 m³/kg, applied in Germany and achievable thanks to the application of the Emission Factor
· harmful substances such as toxic substances, suspected carcinogens: ≤ 0.4 g/kg textile substrate as total emission, with an emission mass flow from the entire plant of 0.10 kg/h or higher · carcinogenic substances a maximum of 0.02 g/kg textile substrate as total emission, with an emission mass flow from the entire plant of 2.5 g/h or higher · other organic substances: ≤ 0.8 g C/kg textile substrate, as total emission, with an emission mass flow from the entire plant of 0.8 kg Org.-C/h or higher.
Textiles Industry 263 Chapter 4 All substances belonging to class I (3.1.7 TA-Luft) exceeding 500 ppm in the auxiliary formulation have to be declared. In addition, information on substances classified under item
2.3 TA-Luft (carcinogenic substances) exceeding 10 ppm is obligatory (“TA-Luft, 1986”).
Substances or preparations which are classified as carcinogens, mutagens or toxic to reproduction under Directive 67/548 EEC as last amended by Directive 1999/33/EG and last adapted by Directive 2000/33/EG, are assigned or need to carry the risk phrases R45, R46, R49, R60, R61 shall be replaced as far as possible by less harmful substances or preparations within the shortest possible time.
Cross-media effects None believed likely.
However, it has to be kept in mind as a general consideration, that the use of a factor makes access to the accumulated information difficult, unless it is fully disclosed [281, Belgium, 2002].
Applicability The emission factor concept is of general applicability in textile mills and is especially suitable for facilities performing chemical finishing treatments and thermosol processes.
This technique is widely applied in Germany, where it is accepted by the environmental authorities. For other countries the application of the emission factor concept depends entirely on the national competent bodies.
Economics There are no costs for the textile finisher apart from the cost of calculating the emission factors for the finishing recipes used in the process, which is negligible. A correct selection of lowemission auxiliaries can significantly reduce costs for air emission abatement.
Driving force for implementation Pre-calculation of emissions enables the finisher to take actions in order to meet the emission limit values set by environmental authorities.
In Germany, where the emission factor concept is accepted by the environmental authority, an important driving force for implementing this technique has been the possibility that it gives of avoiding or reducing expensive emission measurements (pre-calculation).
Reference plants Many in Germany.
Reference literature [179, UBA, 2001].
4.3.3 Substitution for alkylphenol ethoxylates (and other hazardous surfactants) Description Many surfactants give rise to environmental concerns due to their poor biodegradability, their toxicity (including that of their metabolites) and their potential to act as endocrine disrupters.
Concerns currently focus on alkylphenol ethoxylates (APEO) and in particular on nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPE), which are often contained in the formulations of detergents and many other auxiliaries (e.g. dispersing agents, emulsifiers, spinning lubricants).
Alkylphenol ethoxylates are themselves believed to be endocrine disruptors and to cause feminisation of male fish. More importantly, however, they produce metabolites which are believed to be many times more potent as endocrine disruptors than the parent compounds. The most potent of these are octyl- and nonylphenol. Nonylphenol is listed as a priority hazardous substance under OSPAR and the EC Water Framework Directive, which means that any discharge needs to be phased out.
Alkylphenol ethoxylates may be present in auxiliaries formulations as the main active substances or in small percentages as additives. In both cases substitutes are available. The main alternatives are alcohol ethoxylates (AE), but other readily biodegradable surfactants have also been developed.
As to other problematic surfactants, substitutes are often available that are readily biodegradable or bioeliminable in the waste water treatment plant and that do not form toxic metabolites.
Substances are considered readily biodegradable if in a 28-day period, with ready
biodegradation studies (OECD 301 A-F), the following levels of degradation are achieved:
· for tests based on dissolved organic carbon (e.g. OECD tests 301 A, 301 E): ³70 % DOC reduction or
· for tests based on oxygen depletion or carbon dioxide generation (e.g. OECD test 301 B):
³60 % (of theoretical maxima).
Substances are considered bioeliminable if the following levels of degradation are achieved:
· OECD test 302 B, DOC reduction ³70 % in 28 days or · OECD test 302 B, DOC reduction ³80 % in 7 days, if an adapted “inoculum” is used in the treatment plant where the substance is treated.
The finisher should be able to select the less hazardous products based on the information reported by the manufacturer on Material Safety Data Sheets.
Main achieved environmental benefits The use of APEO-free auxiliaries produces a reduction of the amount of potentially toxic endocrine disrupters in the receiving water. Moreover, the substitution of non-bioeliminable surfactants will result in improved treatability of the effluent.
Operational data Sites using exclusively APEO-free auxiliaries report no operational or processing difficulties [32, ENco, 2001].
For the substitution of APEO in detergents, the new washing formulations are reported to be applied in concentrations similar to the conventional ones [180, Spain, 2001].
According to other sources (e.g. [187, INTERLAINE, 1999]), AE are slightly less effective detergents than APEO, which means that higher concentrations and feed rates may be required for equivalent effects. Investigations carried out in the wool scouring sector showed that mills using alkyl phenol ethoxylates used an average of 7.6 g detergent per kg greasy wool (range 4.5 - 15.8 g/kg), while the users of alcohol ethoxylates consumed an average of 10.9 g detergent per kg greasy wool (range 3.5 – 20 g/kg).
Cross-media effects There are no adverse environmental effects to be mentioned.
The possibility of foaming in rivers exists in cases where sufficient amounts of surfactant pass through sewage treatment works unchanged or as partial metabolites with residual surfactant properties. The formation of foam is, however, typical of many other surfactants, including APEO.
This measure is generally applicable in all new and existing wet processing installations.
However, as long as “hard” surfactants are used in fibre and yarn preparation agents, a large fraction of potentially hazardous surfactants in wet-processing effluents cannot be controlled by the dyehouse.
For APEO, it should be noted that these surfactants also have many dry applications (e.g. as dry spinning lubricants, in the production of viscose for technical uses). In these cases substitution is possible, but it is expensive and it is not a priority. Indeed, here the presence of APEO can be regarded as a less critical problem since the surfactant does not enter the wet processing line.
Economics AE are 20 – 25 % more expensive than APEO. The fact that they appear to be less effective can further increase the operating costs over those of APEO. However, mills making the change from APEO to AE are more likely to take care to optimise their use [187, INTERLAINE, 1999].
An example is given for a UK scouring mill which made the substitution in 1996. Annual costs for detergent use were estimated to have increased from EUR 84700 to EUR 103600: an increase equivalent to about EUR 1.09 per tonne of wool processed. In the past few years the cost of APEO has been reduced significantly from EUR 1000/tonne (1997/98) to EUR 700/tonne (1999). As a result the increase in costs involved with the use of AE could be even higher [187, INTERLAINE, 1999].
Generally speaking, costs of environmentally optimised formulations are comparable, but in some cases can be significantly higher than conventional products. However, usually the finisher tends to accept the extra costs associated with the use of more environmentally friendly products, especially when the overall environmental balance is considered [179, UBA, 2001].
Driving force for implementation The enforcement of regulations at national and European level, together with the PARCOM recommendations and the eco-labelling schemes, are the main driving forces.
Reference plants Many plants throughout the world.
Reference literature [187, INTERLAINE, 1999], [32, ENco, 2001], [179, UBA, 2001], [180, Spain, 2001], [51, OSPAR, 1994] with particular reference to P010, P011, P012, [61, L. Bettens, 1999].