Content uploaded by Abel Arkenbout
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Abel Arkenbout on Apr 06, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
nbygdd
Hidden emissions:
A story from the Netherlands
Case Study
www.zerowasteeurope.eu
November 2018 – ToxicoWatch
Hidden emissions:
A story from the Netherlands www.zerowasteeurope.eu
Although presented as state of the art, the youngest incinerator in the Netherlands is far from a
clean: long-term tests reveal emissions of dioxin, furan and persistent organic pollutants far beyond
the limits.
The case of the REC plant raises important questions for future policy-making concerning waste
incineration and its potential effects on public health and the environment.
The youngest of Dutch incinerators: Reststoffen Energie Centrale
Out of the 13 waste incinerators currently in operation in the Netherlands, the Reststoffen Energie
Centrale (REC) is the most recent one. The so-called waste–to-energy plant is located in Harlingen,
bordering the UNESCO Wadden Sea coastline in the North of the Netherlands. When it was built in
2011, it was proudly announced by the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs as ‘a state of the art’
installation, the best in Western Europe. However, long-term testing revealed the plant emits dioxin,
furans and toxic pollutants far beyond the limits set by EU laws.
Initially, in order to deliver energy to the nearby salt industry plant, the REC incinerator was only
supposed to burn Frisian household waste. However, nowadays the waste input comes from
everywhere in the Netherlands. Besides household waste, the REC waste input includes also
industrial waste, digestate1 and sewage sludge. Chemical analyses to check the waste input were
first undertaken at the start in 2011. It is debatable whether this installation with a post combustion
temperature of 8500 Celsius is actually capable of combusting the chemical complexity of current
‘household’ and industrial waste.
Environmental biomarkers and toxic eggs
In 2013, a study by ToxicoWatch found high concentration of dioxins and furans2 in eggs of backyard
chickens in the surroundings of the REC incinerator3 4. Eggs of backyard chickens are sensitive
environmental biomarkers for persistent organic pollutants (POPs) like dioxins5. All eggs of backyard
chickens in Harlingen, sampled within a radius of 2 km from the REC incinerator, showed a much
higher concentration of dioxine than allowed by the EU6. Notably, the concentration exceeded 1.7
BEQ/gram fat (Bioanalytical EQuivalent)7, and the 2.5 picogram TEQ/gram fat8 limit set by EU law.
1 Digestate is the material remaining after the anaerobic digestion of a biodegradable feedstock.
2 Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans, PCDD/Fs.
3Arkenbout, A, 2014. Biomonitoring of dioxins/dl-PCBs in the north of the Netherlands; eggs of backyard chickens, cow and goat
milk and soil as indicators of pollution. Organohalogen Compd. 76, 1407–1410
4 Arkenbout, A, Esbensen KH, 2017. Biomonitoring and source tracking of dioxins in the Netherlands, Eighth World Conference On
Sampling and Blending / Perth, Wa, 9–11 May 2017, 117-124
5 Witteveen en Bos, Dioxine emissie oktober 2015 – Verspreidingsberekeningen, 2015, rapport LW217-12/16-002.590
6 See n=6, Figure 1 black spot
7 The values are expressed in Figure 1 in BEQ because analyses are performed with the bioassay of DR CALUX.
8 TEQ stands for Toxic EQuivalent, picogram is a millionth of a millionth of a gram or 10-12 gram
Hidden emissions:
A story from the Netherlands www.zerowasteeurope.eu
This means that potentially highly toxic dioxins exceed the maximum limit for consumption of eggs
in the environment of Harlingen.
A subsequent national survey9 found 50 % of the backyard chicken eggs in the Netherlands were
below the maximum limit for dioxins in eggs. However, around the incinerator (Figure 1) all eggs are
exceeding the limit for dioxins of 2.5 picogram TEQ/gram fat10.
A study of dioxin depositions on grass in the direct surroundings of the REC incinerator (see Figure
2) confirms elevated values of dioxins. Moreover, the fingerprints of these dioxins found on grass
comply with the congeners found in the flue gases of the incinerator11, tracking the source of dioxin
contamination to the emissions of the incinerator.
Figure 1: Results dioxins eggs backyard chickens Figure 2: Dioxin deposition on grass
Dioxine emissions: long-term sampling reveal breaches
Long-term sampling is not mandatory for waste incineration facilities, that mostly rely on pre-
announced short-term sampling of 6-8 hours twice a year. After the alarming findings of dioxins in
eggs of backyard chickens in the ToxicoWatch study, the local government decided, for the first time
in the Netherlands, to perform long-term sampling of flue gases in the REC with the AMESA
technique, which stands for Adsorption MEthod for SAmpling of dioxins12. When short- and long-
term sampling are carried out in the same period, remarkable differences become visible (Table 1).
The results show that short-term sampling seriously underestimates actual dioxin emission levels
by factors of 460 - > 1290 (Table 1). The current short-term sampling only represents ~0.2 % of the
total yearly operating time, so short-term sampling cannot be considered representative for real
dioxin emissions of the REC incinerator13.
9 Hoogenboom, RL, Ten Dam, G, van Bruggen, M, Jeurissen, SM, van Leeuwen, SP, Theelen, RM, Zeilmaker, MJ, 2016. Polychlorinated
dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans (PCDD/Fs) and biphenyls (PCBs) in home-produced eggs, Chemosphere, 150, 311–319
10 Arkenbout, A, Esbensen KH, 2017. Biomonitoring and source tracking of dioxins in the Netherlands, Eighth World Conference On
Sampling and Blending / Perth, Wa, 9–11 May 2017, 117-124
11 Arkenbout, A, Esbensen KH, 2017. Biomonitoring and source tracking of dioxins in the Netherlands, Eighth World Conference On
Sampling and Blending / Perth, Wa, 9–11 May 2017, 117-124
12 Tejima H, Nishigaki M, Fujita Y, Matsumoto A, Takeda N, Takaoka M, 2007. Characteristics of dioxin emissions at startup and
shutdown of MSW incinerators, Chemosphere 66, 1123–1130
13 Arkenbout, A, Olie K, Esbensen KH, 2018. Emission regimes of POPs of a Dutch incinerator: regulated, measured and hidden
issues, abstract, http://bit.ly/2QQCmW1
Hidden emissions:
A story from the Netherlands www.zerowasteeurope.eu
Sampling
Hours
ng TEQ/Nm3
Factor
Short-term, April 2016
6
< 0.00001
Long-term, April 2016
256
0.01290
> 1290
Short-term, 8 March 2017
6
0.00001
Long-term, March 2017
690
0.00460
460
Table 1: Comparison of parallel short- and long-term measurements (assumed flow: 230,000 Nm3)
Figure 3 shows the results of a 20,139 hours long-term sampling of dioxins (PCDD/Fs) from August
2015 until December 2017, revealing that excess emissions (“outlier events”) are not exceptional,
but rather constitute a regular feature of the REC incineration operation. The results of long-term
sampling clearly show the shortcomings of regulatory short-term measurements14.
Figure 3: Results of 20,139 hours AMESA long-term sampling PCDD/Fs, REC Harlingen
Announced and presented as “State of the art” and applying with Best Available Techniques /Best
Environmental Practices15 , the REC incinerator has a very stringent emission limit of 0.01 ng
TEQ/Nm316. In Figure 3, a number of excursions above the legal threshold limit can be noted. The
horizontal lines indicate from bottom to top the short-term measurements, emission limits set for
the REC in the environmental permit, as well as in the permit by the Integrated Pollution Prevention
and Control (which is now the IED, International Emission Directive17). A total number of 12 start-up
and shutdown events occurred in the measuring period. The permitted limit of 0.01 ng TEQ/Nm3 was
exceeded seven times, and the IED standard of 0.1 ng TEQ/Nm3 twice. As the exceeding of dioxin
14 Idem
15 Guidelines on Best Available Techniques and provisional guidance on Best Environmental Practices, relevant to article 5 and
Annex C of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, 2007, United Nations Environment Programme
16 The EU-norm is 0.1 ng TEQ/Nm3
17 In Dutch: RIE, Richtlijn Industriële Emissies
Hidden emissions:
A story from the Netherlands www.zerowasteeurope.eu
emissions occurred mostly during start-ups, this ‘posed no legal problem’ for the facility because
the norms are stipulated to ‘apply only to steady state operation’. From the very first start-up of the
incinerator in Harlingen in 2011, more than 60 start-ups and shutdowns have been (officially)
registered. In August 2015 the continuous sampling programme of flue gases for dioxin monitoring
AMESA was implemented, but in December 2017 the plant management terminated this long-term
sampling program for unstated reasons. With this decision, the management ignored the wish of
both the local government and the concerned population to continue AMESA monitoring.
Hidden emissions
One of the reason why the REC incinerator exceeds the dioxins permit levels is the use of bypasses
during transient phases, which means that the incinerator emits
without filtering
(Figure 4). In the
technical literature this is known as a ‘filter bypass mode’, ‘abatement bypass’ or ‘dump stacks’. The
bypass mode is
structurally
programmed whenever elevated dust emissions occur. Although the
plant management had recently promised to stop using bypasses, data don’t confirm this has
actually happened.
Figure 4: Block diagram flue gas cleaning REC Harlingen with bypasses
Unfortunately, even AMESA cannot perform continuous sampling during transient phases. In all
breaches of the permit emission limit (see Figure 3) the long-term sampling by the AMESA was
found to be incomplete. During the first outlier event in Figure 3 (exceeding 0.1 ng TEQ/Nm3), the
long-term sampling was interrupted for 10 hours, and for more than 200 hours during the last outlier
event. During the 20,139 hours of long-term sampling of the REC incinerator, AMESA was off-line
for 1,496 hours18. While AMESA is mostly on-line (93% of the time), dust emissions especially occur
when AMESA is off-line. During start-ups the ID-fan (see Figure 4) is regularly turned off, which
results in a shut down and a restart of the AMESA, suspending the test for 3 minutes. When this
process is repeated, the long-term sampling will be disabled for a certain time.
18 Arkenbout, A, Bouman KJAM, 2018. Emissions of dl-PCB, PBB, PBDD/F, PBDE, PFOS, PFOA, and PAH from a waste incinerator,
poster Dioxin2018, http://bit.ly/2RZJe3j
Hidden emissions:
A story from the Netherlands www.zerowasteeurope.eu
Start-ups with no filter
Most studies of ‘start-ups’, including the AMESA long-term sampling, begin to measure when the
waste feed is started (see Table 2, phase 4). Data of dioxin emissions before the waste feed starts
are less prominent in the literature, but all show elevated dioxin emissions during phases where no
waste is burnt 19 20 21 22 23 24 25.
In this study, gravimetrical and short-term measurements were performed in the phases before
waste combustion in Phase 4 starts. The measurements in Phases 2 (flushing) and 3 (heating up)
were performed by the governmental organisation ODRA in 2016, 2017 and 2018. The results show
some remarkable elevated dioxin emissions in Phase 1, 2 and 3 of the start-up process.
Table 2 describes the different phases of a cold start-up. This means the installation is already
several days inactive and stabilized at room temperature. In phase 3, lasting between 32 and 50
hours, the system is heating up from 15–250 to 8500 Celsius, which is the legal binding temperature
at which waste can be put on the grate. In this phase, short-term measurements of 4 to 6 hours
show all dioxin emissions in access of the IED limit of 0.1 ng TEQ/Nm3.
Table 2: Phases of start-up Figure 5: Emission of dust (dumpstack)
In Phase 2, no short-term measurements are possible, and dust can only be measured by
gravimetric methods. Figure 6 shows how an indicative dust load of 73 kg was found in 83 minutes’
measure-time, while the incinerator only declared 2 kg dust during this period. Figure 6 clearly
shows that the dust emission lasts only 3 minutes. The dust meter of the incinerator is unable to
19 Tejima H, Nishigaki M, Fujita Y, Matsumoto A, Takeda N, Takaoka M, 2007. Characteristics of dioxin emissions at startup and
shutdown of MSW incinerators, Chemosphere 66, 1123–1130
20 Hung PC, Chang SH, Buekens A, Chang MB, 2016. Continuous sampling of MSWI dioxins, Chemosphere 145, 119-124
21 Wang L-C, His HC, Chang JE, Yang XY, Chang-Chien GP, Lee WS, 2007. Influence of start-up on PCDD/F emission of incinerators,
Chemosphere 67, 1346–1353
22 Chen CK, Lin C, Lin YC, Wang LC, Chang-Chien GP, 2008. Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins/dibenzofuran mass distribution in both
start-up and normal condition in the whole municipal solid waste incinerator, Journal of Hazardous Materials 160, 37–44
23 Li M, Wang C, Cen K, Ni M, Li X. 2018, Emission characteristics and vapour/particulate phase distributions of PCDD/F in a
hazardous waste incinerator under transient conditions, R. Soc. open sci. 5: 171079
24 Zirogiannis N, Hollingsworth AJ, and Konisky DM, 2018. Understanding Excess Emissions from Industrial Facilities: Evidence from
Texas, Environ. Sci. Technol., 52 (5), pp 2482–2490
25 Witteveen en Bos, Dioxine emissie oktober 2015 – Verspreidingsberekeningen, 2015, rapport LW217-12/16-002.590
Phase
1
Pre
-flushing
Phase 2
Flushing (cold)
Phase 3
Heating up
Phase 3B
Flushing (hot)
Phase 4
Starting waste feed
Phase 5
Regular operation
Hidden emissions:
A story from the Netherlands www.zerowasteeurope.eu
record excessive flows of dust in a short time. In Phase 1 the REC incinerator estimates the amount
of dust emission to be 25-50 kg, but due the incapability of dust emissions meters (only 2% in Phase
2), the real quantity of dust emissions will be much higher. Dust emissions during start-ups without
burning waste are structurally emitted without filtering. This has an economical reason: changing of
filters, especially the bag or fabric filter is an expensive operation. Although emitting without filtering
is prohibited, this practice occurs as a standard. As regards enforcement, penalising breaches is
difficult, because emissions are only measured when waste is actually on the grate, and the
bypassing system is still being applied (see Figure 5, which likely indicates emissions of dust
saturated with dioxines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAHS)).
Figure 6: Dust emissions during phase 2 start-up REC Harlingen 2017 Figure 7: Most of the time, bypassing (dump
stacks) takes only a few minutes
Although the AMESA test was prepared for operation during the start-up after the annual
maintenance stop, it was blocked three times for unstated reasons. According to documents of the
REC incinerator, several cleaning operations (flushing) have taken place in Phase 1, but without
filtering. Sometimes this cleaning and dust emissions was visible (Figure 5), but most of the time
these dump stacks took place at night. In Figure 7, regular patterns of 3-minute dust emissions are
shown, just as a result of opening and closing the bypasses.
An exact number of dioxin emissions during start-ups is hard to give, but estimates are 5-10 mg
dioxins for one cold start-up event. Annual emissions of the REC incinerator are estimated at around
5 mg dioxins during normal condition26 . More often start-ups occur without cooling down. An
example is the first calamity in Figure 3, with an uncontrolled combustion of 19 tons of undefined
waste, during which AMESA was off-line for more than 10 hours. An official conservative estimate
of dioxin emissions is 33 mg27, but this figure is probably much higher, since the waste was wet28
and likely to have a Polyvinyl Chloride, PVC, content above 2% because of an impossibility of pre-
separation of PVC). Hot start-ups occur more often than cold start-ups, and these are also being
sampled incompletely by AMESA, simply because the cartridge comes in a reset loop and interrupts
the sampling. Problems with uncontrolled combustion happened several times in 2018, even the
local fire brigades had to intervene, and the plant management seems not to be in control.
26 Witteveen en Bos, Dioxine emissie oktober 2015 – Verspreidingsberekeningen, 2015, rapport LW217-12/16-002.590
27 Idem
28 Information provided by an internal source
Hidden emissions:
A story from the Netherlands www.zerowasteeurope.eu
Nonetheless, the REC incinerator would be able to defend these emissions during transient stages
in courts, since regulations ‘only apply to steady state operations’ and exclude failure events. It is
very difficult to understand this kind of official reasoning of enforcement, which certainly does not
benefit the environment or the local population’s health.
Breaches in the post-combustion zone
The IED, Directive 2010/75/EU29, requires that the flue gases of a waste incinerator have a residence
time of 2 seconds at 850°C in the post combustion zone under homogeneous conditions.
Measurements in 2017 (6 years after the start in 2011) by TÜV Rheinland Energy Gmbh30 indicate
that the REC incinerator in Harlingen does not comply with this requirement of homogeneity of
temperature and oxygen in the post-combustion zone31. The enforcement of these conditions should
be more stringent, to ensure the requirements are fulfilled according to guidelines of the Best
Available Techniques (BAT) and the Best Environmental Practices (BEP) 32 . Moreover, the
management of the REC plant violates the guidelines in article 5, Annex C of the Stockholm
Convention33 34 on persistent organic pollutants, and notably the measures to reduce or eliminate
releases of unintentional production. Moreover, the management of REC incinerator also acts in
violation of article 10 of the Stockolm Convention35, concerning public information, awareness and
education, by refusing to disclose data on combustion temperatures, thus raising questions about
the capacity of sufficient destruction of unintentionally produced persistent organic pollutants
(POPs).
29 DIRECTIVE 2010/75/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions
(integrated pollution prevention and control), p. 41
30 Measurement report REC, Harlingen, Netherlands, 21.08.2017, TÜV Report No.: 936/21239402/A Cologne
31 Arkenbout, A, Sarolea, HA, 2018. Temperature and Oxygen levels in the post-combustion zone of a Waste-to-Energy Incinerator,
poster Dioxin2018, http://bit.ly/2zZrBt5
32 Guidelines on Best Available Techniques and provisional guidance on Best Environmental Practices, relevant to article 5 and
Annex C of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, 2007, United Nations Environment Programme
33 REGULATION (EC) No 850/2004 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL, 29 April 2004 on persistent organic
pollutants and amending Directive 79/117/EEC
34 Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) as amended in 2009,
https://www.env.go.jp/chemi/pops/treaty/treaty_en2009.pdf
35 Idem
Hidden emissions:
A story from the Netherlands www.zerowasteeurope.eu
Unintentionally produced persistent organic pollutants (UPOPs)
As the long-term sampling programme AMESA was extended to analyse other UPOPs36 37 in the flue
gases, results pointed strongly to incomplete combustion in the REC incinerator.
Notably:
1. Near the incinerator, dioxin-like polychlorinated biphenyls (Dl-PCBs) were dominantly found
in eggs, milk, grass and soil, especially PCB 126. The coplanar dl-PCBs were prominent in the
emissions of the incinerator, 8,5% of the total TEQ (n = 36, 20,139 hours), while other
incinerators emit 3 times less dl-PCBs38.
2. Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) were detected during start-ups and shutdowns. In
October 2015, 0,434 ng PBDE/Nm3 were measured when the waste supply was blocked and
the waste ignited. In 2018, several similar fire calamities took place, but no data of UPOPs
exist because AMESA measurements were stopped.
3. Brominated dioxins (polybrominated dibenzodioxines and furans, PBDD/Fs) were detected
during start-ups and shutdowns: 5,4 – 8,9 picogram PBDE/Nm3, indicating incomplete
combustion of brominated flame retardants39.
4. Polybrominated biphenyls (PBBs) were detected during steady state conditions with
concentrations of 0,038 – 0,133 ng/Nm3. Normally these compounds should decompose
above 3000 Celsius, and the presence of these substances indicate incomplete combustion.
5. Near the incinerator, the rain is regularly polluted with black particles. A CALUX screening
test shows high concentrations of benzo(a)pyrene in black deposits on windows and roofs.
Although the incinerator should not emit PAH at all (and the REC incinerator has, therefore,
no PAH emission licence), all samples (n = 3), during steady state condition, were found to be
positive with a PAH concentration of 2,4 – 314,8 ng/Nm3 in the flue gases40.
6. Fluorinated compounds as perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) was detected in all (n = 6) samples
(433 – 794 hours, total 3,929 hours)41. PFOA should not be detectable at all in modern waste
incineration processes. Finding of PFOA in the stack can be an indicator of uncomplete
combustion, i.e. not complying with a minimum 2 seconds residence time at 850 °C.
While these facts provide a conservative estimate of UPOPs-related pollution in the area, the actual
impact would be much higher, as sampling is interrupted when dust emissions occur.
The finding of such a broad scale of UPOPs signals incomplete combustion, probably caused by
insufficient homogeneous temperatures and oxygen levels in the after combustion zone and
improper use of the bypasses.
36 Arkenbout, A, Esbensen KH, 2017. Biomonitoring and source tracking of dioxins in the Netherlands, Eighth World Conference On
Sampling and Blending / Perth, Wa, 9–11 May 2017, 117-124
37 Arkenbout, A, Bouman KJAM, 2018. Emissions of dl-PCB, PBB, PBDD/F, PBDE, PFOS, PFOA, and PAH from a waste incinerator,
poster Dioxin2018, http://bit.ly/2RZJe3j
38 Sakurai, T, Weber, R, Ueno, S, Nishino, J & Tanaka, M, 2003. Relevance of coplanar PCBs for TEQ emission of fluidized bed
incineration and impact of emission control devices. Chemosphere 53, 619–625
39 Bjurlid F, Polybrominated dibenzo-p-dioxins and furans: from source of emission to human exposure, Örebro University, Repro
12/2017, ISBN 978-91-7529-221-2
40 Arkenbout, A, Behnisch P, 2017. PAHs depositions in the environment of a waste incinerator, http://bit.ly/2Tot84Y
41 Arkenbout A, 2018. Long-term sampling emission of PFOS and PFOA of a Waste-to-Energy incinerator, http://bit.ly/2FtsEro
Hidden emissions:
A story from the Netherlands www.zerowasteeurope.eu
Further research is needed to clarify the real impact of emissions of incomplete combustion. Also,
whether the change of waste input could lead to an increased change for the occurring of calamities
is an aspect that must be considered.
Conclusions and recommendations
The dioxin emissions of the so called ‘state of the art’ REC incinerator Harlingen continue to be
underestimated, and frequently go far beyond the limits set by the environmental permit (0,01 ng
TEQ/Nm3). On top of that, the regulatory short-term measurements structurally underestimate
dioxin emissions.
The mandatory
pre-announced
controls of dioxin emissions must be replaced by an appropriate
scheme of
long-term sampling
. When using approaches like AMESA for long-term sampling, special
attention should be paid to interruptions in the monitoring, as it is key for valid long-term sampling
to be continuous.
The broad scale of UPOPs emitted by the REC incinerator signals incomplete combustion, probably
caused by insufficient homogeneous temperatures and oxygen levels in the after combustion zone,
and improper use of bypasses.
In order to reduce emissions of UPOPs in the environment, a more stringent application and a better
enforcement of the Stockholm Convention is highly recommendable. The temperature and the
oxygen levels in the after-combustion zone should be monitored on-line and duly enforced during
normal operation, and this also under the most unfavourable incineration conditions, as mentioned
by the Stockholm Convention papers and the IED.
Dioxin emissions during transient stages of start-up and shutdown easily exceed annual emissions
during steady state. All dioxin emissions should be taken into account, not only emissions during the
ideal steady state operation. Also, excluding emissions that occur during transient stages from
monitoring regulations should be stopped immediately.
Moreover, the results of the measurements in the REC incinerator raise important questions for
future policy-making concerning what can be accepted as
normal
operating and monitoring
conditions for incinerator plants, with respect to their potential effects on public health and the
environment. The studies reviewed here show unequivocally that dioxins are
still
a serious issue,
that measurement programs
still
show serious shortages, that the health of the population is
still
under threat and there is unfortunately
still
a long way to go to totally eliminate dioxin emissions to
the environment.
***
Hidden emissions:
A story from the Netherlands www.zerowasteeurope.eu
Acknowledgements
This case study is written by Abel Arkenbout, ToxicoWatch
ToxicoWatch is funded by citizens concerned about industrial pollution in their environment.
The Dutch government funded long-term sampling with the AMESA technique of the waste
incinerator Harlingen, national egg monitoring, grass-soil research and TÜV temperature research
REC.
ToxicoWatch
NGO ToxicoWatch42 is an organization dedicated to creating a safer and healthier world by advancing
the science of toxicology and raising awareness about toxic hazards in the environment.
ToxicoWatch researches persistent organic pollutants as dioxins, PCBs, PAHs and
brominated/fluorinated compounds. Source tracking of POPs in the environment and advising on
regional and national level between government and industry. NGO ToxicoWatch is a member of
International POPs Elimination Network, IPEN43.
Zero Waste Europe was created to empower communities to rethink their relationship with the resources.
In a growing number of regions, local groups of individuals, businesses and city officials are taking significant steps
towards eliminating waste in our society.
Case study by Abel Arkenbout
Editors: Roberta Arbinolo, Janek Vähk and Yianna Sigalou
Zero Waste Europe, 2018
Zero Waste Europe gratefully acknowledges financial assistance from the European Union. The sole
responsibility for the content of this event materials lies with Zero Waste Europe. It does not necessarily
reflect the opinion of the funder mentioned above. The funder cannot be held responsible for any use
that may be made of the information contained therein.
42 Toxicowatch website: www.toxicowatch.org
43 IPEN; www.ipen.org
