General
De Bree Solutions modernises operation with wet processing
Wet processing industry experts CDE have commissioned the company’s first solution in Belgium for family-owned business De Bree Solutions as it upgrades its 20-year-old equipment range to boost process efficiency and respond to growing demand. Founded in the 1970s, the company, then known as Cleaning De Bree, established itself as a specialist sewage and waste collection service provider, offering septic tank emptying, cleaning and pumping amongst its range of services.
Having expanded its focus over the past five decades, De Bree Solutions, as it is known today, is active in industrial cleaning, green processing, soil cleaning, soil remediation, waste management, water purification and sewer renovation throughout Belgium, Netherlands and France.
Its most significant shift occurred over two decades ago at the turn of millennium when, as a result of evolving environmental legislation, De Bree Solutions invested heavily in the latest recycling technologies of the day, establishing soil remediation and water purification facilities at its site in Maldegem and opening three new sites in Ostend, Eke and Schoondijke where valuable raw materials are, to this day, recovered from contaminated and inert waste streams.
Just as the company pivoted and adopted responsible waste processing practices over 20 years ago, the forward-thinking De Bree Solutions once again is investing in the latest waste processing technologies, engineered by industry experts CDE, as it enters a period of business growth and sustained demand for its product range.
“Now is the right moment for us to invest”
Yves Dupont, Managing Director at De Bree Solutions, says streamlining and making efficient an ageing plant setup at its Maldegem facility were key to supporting the company to grow sustainably and remain competitive. “We have operated our current plant for over 20 years now, and in that time have invested in additional components designed to integrate with it. It has served us well over its lifetime, but now is the right moment for us to invest in an overhaul of the plant to address inefficiencies that have slowly developed over time.”
Eunan Kelly, Head of Business Development for North West Europe at CDE, says integration with the existing plant setup was essential for the project.
“After meeting with Yves and the team at De Bree Solutions we gained an in-depth understanding of what the business wanted to achieve: competitive advantage, reduced OPEX, cost-effective and efficient solutions. Top of the list was durable technologies that could integrate with the company’s existing setup.
“Equipped with this knowledge, having also surveyed the site and the existing plant, we identified shortcomings in components, inefficient transfer points and a sand product that had the potential to achieve a higher specification; all areas of the plant that could be improved by CDE’s proven technology and processes.”
To meet growing demand for its product range, De Bree Solutions also sought to expand the processing capacity of its operation. With higher processing and production capacity, it was critical the solution developed was reliable, as Dupont explains.
“With more material passing through the plant there is more need for downtime to accommodate maintenance and upkeep, and more potential for things to go wrong. That’s why, aside from the quality and quantity of product, the entire system had to be backed up by reliable technology which would reduce operational costs – producing savings we can pass on to our customers – and maximise plant uptime.”
CDE solution
The solution proposed by CDE included its AggMax, EvoWash and CFCU systems to process highly variable feed material including organic waste, contaminated soils containing metals, cyanide and oil; construction, demolition and excavation (CD&E) waste; and road sweepings.
CDE’s market leading AggMax technology is engineered to operate in the toughest of conditions to maximise product yield from the most abrasive of feedstocks. Its versatile design incorporates five processes on a single and compact portable chassis, including pre-screening, scrubbing/attrition, sizing, contaminants removal and stockpiling.
The heavy-duty AggMax can process challenging CD&E waste material containing large quantities of organic and other inert physical contaminants into high-value materials suitable for a variety of applications in the construction industry.
Fine material is processed by CDE’s signature EvoWash technology. A compact, modular sand washing system, the EvoWash screens and separates the smaller sand and gravel fractions through an integrated high-frequency dewatering screen, sump and hydrocyclones which provide unrivalled control of silt cut points and eliminates the loss of quality fines with significant commercial value.
Incorporating CDE’s patented Infinity Screen technology, the EvoWash offers optimal dewatering results which enables materials processors to produce a range of high-quality sands that are market-ready straight from the belt.
CFCU technology allows for effective separation of two materials of differing relative densities. With a variable cut (separation) point, it offers greater control over sand classification providing complete flexibility for the production of various end products and the removal of lightweight contaminants from the fine material fraction.
Project pillars
The full solution was designed around the customer’s specific needs, Kelly explains. “Reliability, plant maintenance, processing capacity, product specification and integration were the pillars of this project. Our solution eliminates the inefficiencies found in the original setup and integrates reliable and scalable technologies which are important for future growth.”
Where the original plant had two cyclones, it now only has one, which Kelly says is a less costly and more efficient way of working. An existing CFCU was also replaced, he adds.
“The sand product wasn’t of a high quality, but our tests showed it could be produced to a higher specification. It was the outdated technology that was letting it down.
“We completely replaced the CFCU with ours to ensure consistent sand specification from a much more reliable system which requires less maintenance.”
400 tonnes per day
Integrating seamlessly with the existing plant setup, CDE’s tailored solution has almost doubled processing capacity at the Maldegem site.
“We’re targeting 400 tonnes per day, in one production shift, of sand and stone which will of course vary due to the variable nature of the material we process, but the fact is that thanks to CDE we now have that capacity there which will help us keep up with growing demand,” Dupont explains.
Both the sand and aggregate fractions pass through the newly commissioned equipment which has increased capacity and improved output quality.
Stijn Declerck, Head of department GRC & WZI at De Bree Solutions, adds, “There is indeed more and more demand and we want to run more material than ever before. The CDE plant has allowed us to keep up with the growing demand and grow our business.”
Washed sand processed by the CDE solution is being used for over 90% of concrete produced by De Bree Solutions for underground works, while the aggregate output is used for various applications, including concrete products, drainage and other construction-related applications.
Kelly says the project represents a major milestone for CDE as it continues to grow its presence on the ground in Europe.
“Belgium is a well-established market, so it’s a significant endorsement of our technology and process that De Bree Solutions selected us as their partner on the project, our first in the Belgian marketplace.
“We believe that this project highlights how CDE can help improve existing operations with products from our extensive range. The right products and a great partnership have led to this being a very successful project for all involved.”
Definitions for recycled plastics must not be set by companies
Today, ECOS, Zero Waste Europe, and the Rethink Plastic alliance have sent a letter calling on the European Commission to put on hold the development of overarching standards on plastics recyclability until related EU laws are adopted.
Going ahead with this standardisation process now would give companies the opportunity to set the ambition of definitions of recyclability-related terms, potentially weakening effective recyclability rates in Europe for years to come.
The European Commission must suspend the standardisation request process for plastics recycling. The process needs to be put on hold until the revision of the essential requirements for packaging waste is decided by democratically elected policymakers in the European Parliament and the EU Council, NGOs argue in a letter sent today to European Commission officials in DG GROW and DG ENVI.
The letter was triggered by the European Commission’s plan to issue a standardisation request to CEN and CENELEC by September 2021, aiming to set definitions, test and calculation methods for a wide range of terms related to plastics recycling and recycled plastics. The planned standardisation request is currently set to contain a list of definitions put forward by the industry’s Circular Plastics Alliance (CPA) [2]. The subsequent standardisation process would impact a number of crucial sectors such as packaging, buildings and construction, electronics, agriculture and automotive.
However, several similar technical terms are to be established soon in EU legislation, as part of the upcoming revision of essential requirements for packaging waste, and the implementing measures relating to the uptake of recycled content.
If industry-led definitions for recyclability are set in standards before they are defined in laws, future legislative efforts could be effectively halted or even watered down, with an important practical consequence in making recycling targets less reliable [3].
Once technical terms are set in legislation, standards can be a powerful tool in support of that legislation to improve the recyclability of plastic materials even further. For example, they could provide homogeneous packaging specifications, thus boosting recyclate quality and making it easier to effectively introduce old plastics into new products.
Fanny Rateau, Programme Manager at ECOS, said: “If the EU wants to ramp up its recycling rates, the legal foundations must first be set in stone, and this will only be achieved by legally binding definitions of crucial terms such as ‘recyclability’ or ‘recycled content’ . Standards can then take it to the next level and improve the recyclability of plastic materials even further. But not the other way around.”
Definitions for recycled plastics must not be set by companies
Today, ECOS, Zero Waste Europe, and the Rethink Plastic alliance have sent a letter calling on the European Commission to put on hold the development of overarching standards on plastics recyclability until related EU laws are adopted.
Going ahead with this standardisation process now would give companies the opportunity to set the ambition of definitions of recyclability-related terms, potentially weakening effective recyclability rates in Europe for years to come.
The European Commission must suspend the standardisation request process for plastics recycling. The process needs to be put on hold until the revision of the essential requirements for packaging waste is decided by democratically elected policymakers in the European Parliament and the EU Council, NGOs argue in a letter sent today to European Commission officials in DG GROW and DG ENVI.
The letter was triggered by the European Commission’s plan to issue a standardisation request to CEN and CENELEC by September 2021, aiming to set definitions, test and calculation methods for a wide range of terms related to plastics recycling and recycled plastics. The planned standardisation request is currently set to contain a list of definitions put forward by the industry’s Circular Plastics Alliance (CPA) [2]. The subsequent standardisation process would impact a number of crucial sectors such as packaging, buildings and construction, electronics, agriculture and automotive.
However, several similar technical terms are to be established soon in EU legislation, as part of the upcoming revision of essential requirements for packaging waste, and the implementing measures relating to the uptake of recycled content.
If industry-led definitions for recyclability are set in standards before they are defined in laws, future legislative efforts could be effectively halted or even watered down, with an important practical consequence in making recycling targets less reliable [3].
Once technical terms are set in legislation, standards can be a powerful tool in support of that legislation to improve the recyclability of plastic materials even further. For example, they could provide homogeneous packaging specifications, thus boosting recyclate quality and making it easier to effectively introduce old plastics into new products.
Fanny Rateau, Programme Manager at ECOS, said: “If the EU wants to ramp up its recycling rates, the legal foundations must first be set in stone, and this will only be achieved by legally binding definitions of crucial terms such as ‘recyclability’ or ‘recycled content’ . Standards can then take it to the next level and improve the recyclability of plastic materials even further. But not the other way around.”
Definitions for recycled plastics must not be set by companies
Today, ECOS, Zero Waste Europe, and the Rethink Plastic alliance have sent a letter calling on the European Commission to put on hold the development of overarching standards on plastics recyclability until related EU laws are adopted.
Going ahead with this standardisation process now would give companies the opportunity to set the ambition of definitions of recyclability-related terms, potentially weakening effective recyclability rates in Europe for years to come.
The European Commission must suspend the standardisation request process for plastics recycling. The process needs to be put on hold until the revision of the essential requirements for packaging waste is decided by democratically elected policymakers in the European Parliament and the EU Council, NGOs argue in a letter sent today to European Commission officials in DG GROW and DG ENVI.
The letter was triggered by the European Commission’s plan to issue a standardisation request to CEN and CENELEC by September 2021, aiming to set definitions, test and calculation methods for a wide range of terms related to plastics recycling and recycled plastics. The planned standardisation request is currently set to contain a list of definitions put forward by the industry’s Circular Plastics Alliance (CPA) [2]. The subsequent standardisation process would impact a number of crucial sectors such as packaging, buildings and construction, electronics, agriculture and automotive.
However, several similar technical terms are to be established soon in EU legislation, as part of the upcoming revision of essential requirements for packaging waste, and the implementing measures relating to the uptake of recycled content.
If industry-led definitions for recyclability are set in standards before they are defined in laws, future legislative efforts could be effectively halted or even watered down, with an important practical consequence in making recycling targets less reliable [3].
Once technical terms are set in legislation, standards can be a powerful tool in support of that legislation to improve the recyclability of plastic materials even further. For example, they could provide homogeneous packaging specifications, thus boosting recyclate quality and making it easier to effectively introduce old plastics into new products.
Fanny Rateau, Programme Manager at ECOS, said: “If the EU wants to ramp up its recycling rates, the legal foundations must first be set in stone, and this will only be achieved by legally binding definitions of crucial terms such as ‘recyclability’ or ‘recycled content’ . Standards can then take it to the next level and improve the recyclability of plastic materials even further. But not the other way around.”
Crude steel production increases
China is estimated to have produced 83.0 Mt in February 2021, up 10.9% on February 2020. India produced 9.1 Mt, down 3.1%. Japan produced 7.5 Mt, down 5.6%. The United States produced 6.3 Mt, down 10.9%. Russia is estimated to have produced 5.7 Mt, down 1.3%. South Korea produced 5.5 Mt, up 1.2%. Turkey produced 3.0 Mt, up 5.9%. Germany produced 3.1 Mt, down 10.4%. Brazil produced 2.8 Mt, up 3.8%. Iran is estimated to have produced 2.3 Mt, up 11.5%.
| Table 1. Crude steel production by region | |||||
| Feb 2021 (Mt) | % change Feb 21/20 | Jan-Feb 2021 (Mt) | % change Jan-Feb 21/20 | ||
| Africa | 1.2 | -6.4 | 2.4 | -6.9 | |
| Asia and Oceania | 109.7 | 7.5 | 230.8 | 10.1 | |
| CIS | 8.0 | -1.5 | 16.8 | -0.4 | |
| EU (27) | 11.9 | -7.1 | 24.1 | -3.7 | |
| Europe, Other | 3.9 | 5.2 | 8.2 | 6.9 | |
| Middle East | 3.2 | -0.9 | 6.8 | 0.4 | |
| North America | 8.8 | -8.9 | 18.5 | -7.1 | |
| South America | 3.5 | 2.2 | 7.3 | 6.6 | |
| Total 64 countries | 150.2 | 4.1 | 315.0 | 6.6 | |
Crude steel production increases
China is estimated to have produced 83.0 Mt in February 2021, up 10.9% on February 2020. India produced 9.1 Mt, down 3.1%. Japan produced 7.5 Mt, down 5.6%. The United States produced 6.3 Mt, down 10.9%. Russia is estimated to have produced 5.7 Mt, down 1.3%. South Korea produced 5.5 Mt, up 1.2%. Turkey produced 3.0 Mt, up 5.9%. Germany produced 3.1 Mt, down 10.4%. Brazil produced 2.8 Mt, up 3.8%. Iran is estimated to have produced 2.3 Mt, up 11.5%.
| Table 1. Crude steel production by region | |||||
| Feb 2021 (Mt) | % change Feb 21/20 | Jan-Feb 2021 (Mt) | % change Jan-Feb 21/20 | ||
| Africa | 1.2 | -6.4 | 2.4 | -6.9 | |
| Asia and Oceania | 109.7 | 7.5 | 230.8 | 10.1 | |
| CIS | 8.0 | -1.5 | 16.8 | -0.4 | |
| EU (27) | 11.9 | -7.1 | 24.1 | -3.7 | |
| Europe, Other | 3.9 | 5.2 | 8.2 | 6.9 | |
| Middle East | 3.2 | -0.9 | 6.8 | 0.4 | |
| North America | 8.8 | -8.9 | 18.5 | -7.1 | |
| South America | 3.5 | 2.2 | 7.3 | 6.6 | |
| Total 64 countries | 150.2 | 4.1 | 315.0 | 6.6 | |
EU microplastic ban just got a step closer, but has major loopholes
The European Commission has pledged to ban microplastic from cosmetics, paints, detergents, some farm, medical and other products to prevent 500,000 tonnes polluting mostly rivers and seas. The legal process moved forward on Tuesday when a detailed proposal was presented by ECHA to the Commission. The legal restriction is expected to become law next year.
But following industry lobbying, the proposal has major loopholes, according to the Rethink Plastic alliance of environmental groups. Some sectors could get up to 8 years to drop microplastic, while ‘biodegradable’ microplastic that has not been shown to degrade in the environment could escape the ban. The 500,000 tonnes target will be impossible to achieve unless the proposal is improved, they calculated.
European Environmental Bureau chemicals policy officer Elise Vitali said: “Microplastic pollution is everywhere: in our drinking water, our fields, filling the air in cities and even inside our bodies. The EU is right to build on its reputation of tackling plastic pollution with this new ban. But it must avoid being sidetracked by industry-sponsored loopholes. We want a quick and broad restriction with no green light for unproven biodegradable plastic.”
Hélène Duguy, chemicals lawyer at ClientEarth, said: “The EU promised to turn off the taps on microplastic pollution. Take sport pitches – it’s a gigantic source of microplastics pollution and it’s now up to the Commission to make sure that a full ban is in order. When it comes to cosmetics – another well-known source of this pollution – the Commission needs to reject the lenient proposal that would give the cosmetics industry a free pass to continue business as usual until 2028, even where alternatives are available.”
Microplastic pollution is irreversible and causes considerable harm to the environment, with potential grave consequences for humans. EU scientific advisors have recognised that microplastics pose an unacceptable risk, which justifies a comprehensive ban.
The groups are urging the Commission to adopt a broad restriction that covers all microplastics in all sectors and uses.
The proposal is now in the hands of the Commission’s industry department, which has not always shown ambition on chemicals policy, the NGOs said. The Commission has until late May 2021 to draft the restriction text, which will then go to a vote of member state experts. The European Parliament and Council of Ministers then have three months to object, but rarely do.
EU microplastic ban just got a step closer, but has major loopholes
The European Commission has pledged to ban microplastic from cosmetics, paints, detergents, some farm, medical and other products to prevent 500,000 tonnes polluting mostly rivers and seas. The legal process moved forward on Tuesday when a detailed proposal was presented by ECHA to the Commission. The legal restriction is expected to become law next year.
But following industry lobbying, the proposal has major loopholes, according to the Rethink Plastic alliance of environmental groups. Some sectors could get up to 8 years to drop microplastic, while ‘biodegradable’ microplastic that has not been shown to degrade in the environment could escape the ban. The 500,000 tonnes target will be impossible to achieve unless the proposal is improved, they calculated.
European Environmental Bureau chemicals policy officer Elise Vitali said: “Microplastic pollution is everywhere: in our drinking water, our fields, filling the air in cities and even inside our bodies. The EU is right to build on its reputation of tackling plastic pollution with this new ban. But it must avoid being sidetracked by industry-sponsored loopholes. We want a quick and broad restriction with no green light for unproven biodegradable plastic.”
Hélène Duguy, chemicals lawyer at ClientEarth, said: “The EU promised to turn off the taps on microplastic pollution. Take sport pitches – it’s a gigantic source of microplastics pollution and it’s now up to the Commission to make sure that a full ban is in order. When it comes to cosmetics – another well-known source of this pollution – the Commission needs to reject the lenient proposal that would give the cosmetics industry a free pass to continue business as usual until 2028, even where alternatives are available.”
Microplastic pollution is irreversible and causes considerable harm to the environment, with potential grave consequences for humans. EU scientific advisors have recognised that microplastics pose an unacceptable risk, which justifies a comprehensive ban.
The groups are urging the Commission to adopt a broad restriction that covers all microplastics in all sectors and uses.
The proposal is now in the hands of the Commission’s industry department, which has not always shown ambition on chemicals policy, the NGOs said. The Commission has until late May 2021 to draft the restriction text, which will then go to a vote of member state experts. The European Parliament and Council of Ministers then have three months to object, but rarely do.
EU microplastic ban just got a step closer, but has major loopholes
The European Commission has pledged to ban microplastic from cosmetics, paints, detergents, some farm, medical and other products to prevent 500,000 tonnes polluting mostly rivers and seas. The legal process moved forward on Tuesday when a detailed proposal was presented by ECHA to the Commission. The legal restriction is expected to become law next year.
But following industry lobbying, the proposal has major loopholes, according to the Rethink Plastic alliance of environmental groups. Some sectors could get up to 8 years to drop microplastic, while ‘biodegradable’ microplastic that has not been shown to degrade in the environment could escape the ban. The 500,000 tonnes target will be impossible to achieve unless the proposal is improved, they calculated.
European Environmental Bureau chemicals policy officer Elise Vitali said: “Microplastic pollution is everywhere: in our drinking water, our fields, filling the air in cities and even inside our bodies. The EU is right to build on its reputation of tackling plastic pollution with this new ban. But it must avoid being sidetracked by industry-sponsored loopholes. We want a quick and broad restriction with no green light for unproven biodegradable plastic.”
Hélène Duguy, chemicals lawyer at ClientEarth, said: “The EU promised to turn off the taps on microplastic pollution. Take sport pitches – it’s a gigantic source of microplastics pollution and it’s now up to the Commission to make sure that a full ban is in order. When it comes to cosmetics – another well-known source of this pollution – the Commission needs to reject the lenient proposal that would give the cosmetics industry a free pass to continue business as usual until 2028, even where alternatives are available.”
Microplastic pollution is irreversible and causes considerable harm to the environment, with potential grave consequences for humans. EU scientific advisors have recognised that microplastics pose an unacceptable risk, which justifies a comprehensive ban.
The groups are urging the Commission to adopt a broad restriction that covers all microplastics in all sectors and uses.
The proposal is now in the hands of the Commission’s industry department, which has not always shown ambition on chemicals policy, the NGOs said. The Commission has until late May 2021 to draft the restriction text, which will then go to a vote of member state experts. The European Parliament and Council of Ministers then have three months to object, but rarely do.
EU microplastic ban just got a step closer, but has major loopholes
The European Commission has pledged to ban microplastic from cosmetics, paints, detergents, some farm, medical and other products to prevent 500,000 tonnes polluting mostly rivers and seas. The legal process moved forward on Tuesday when a detailed proposal was presented by ECHA to the Commission. The legal restriction is expected to become law next year.
But following industry lobbying, the proposal has major loopholes, according to the Rethink Plastic alliance of environmental groups. Some sectors could get up to 8 years to drop microplastic, while ‘biodegradable’ microplastic that has not been shown to degrade in the environment could escape the ban. The 500,000 tonnes target will be impossible to achieve unless the proposal is improved, they calculated.
European Environmental Bureau chemicals policy officer Elise Vitali said: “Microplastic pollution is everywhere: in our drinking water, our fields, filling the air in cities and even inside our bodies. The EU is right to build on its reputation of tackling plastic pollution with this new ban. But it must avoid being sidetracked by industry-sponsored loopholes. We want a quick and broad restriction with no green light for unproven biodegradable plastic.”
Hélène Duguy, chemicals lawyer at ClientEarth, said: “The EU promised to turn off the taps on microplastic pollution. Take sport pitches – it’s a gigantic source of microplastics pollution and it’s now up to the Commission to make sure that a full ban is in order. When it comes to cosmetics – another well-known source of this pollution – the Commission needs to reject the lenient proposal that would give the cosmetics industry a free pass to continue business as usual until 2028, even where alternatives are available.”
Microplastic pollution is irreversible and causes considerable harm to the environment, with potential grave consequences for humans. EU scientific advisors have recognised that microplastics pose an unacceptable risk, which justifies a comprehensive ban.
The groups are urging the Commission to adopt a broad restriction that covers all microplastics in all sectors and uses.
The proposal is now in the hands of the Commission’s industry department, which has not always shown ambition on chemicals policy, the NGOs said. The Commission has until late May 2021 to draft the restriction text, which will then go to a vote of member state experts. The European Parliament and Council of Ministers then have three months to object, but rarely do.